Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:15 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Kevin Horton)
2. 04:24 AM - Re: Z-14 (James Clark)
3. 04:36 AM - Temperature compensation (Gilles Tatry)
4. 07:05 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc version=3.0.3 (Bret Smith)
5. 07:15 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Dan Beadle)
6. 07:29 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (sportav8r@aol.com)
7. 07:40 AM - Re: Re: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) (Ken)
8. 08:00 AM - Re: Temperature compensation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:19 AM - Re: Con(fusing) fusible link questions? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:41 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Wayne Sweet)
11. 12:41 PM - Re: Looking for alternator ()
12. 12:41 PM - Re: Looking for alternator ()
13. 12:50 PM - ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Bill Schlatterer)
14. 01:02 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Craig Payne)
15. 01:11 PM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Craig Payne)
16. 01:12 PM - Re: Regulator VR (better than Ford) ()
17. 01:16 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Mark R Steitle)
18. 01:20 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Bruce Gray)
19. 01:28 PM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
20. 01:36 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
21. 01:41 PM - Re: Temperature compensation (Gilles Tatry)
22. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Bruce Gray)
23. 02:16 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (John Schroeder)
24. 02:25 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Mark R Steitle)
25. 02:27 PM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Craig Payne)
26. 02:48 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@AOL.COM)
27. 02:53 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (John Schroeder)
28. 03:07 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Dave Morris \)
29. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Mark R. Supinski)
30. 03:26 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 03:27 PM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 03:29 PM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
33. 03:39 PM - Re: Temperature compensation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
34. 03:50 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
35. 03:52 PM - battery tenders again (bob noffs)
36. 04:41 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Matt Prather)
37. 04:49 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Jerry Grimmonpre)
38. 05:00 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
39. 05:03 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
40. 05:16 PM - Re: battery tenders again (Larry McFarland)
41. 06:42 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Craig Payne)
42. 07:00 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
43. 07:10 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Alex Peterson)
44. 07:18 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Kevin Horton)
45. 07:24 PM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses 32 volt. (G McNutt)
46. 07:50 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
47. 08:00 PM - Re: battery tenders again (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
48. 08:01 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Craig Payne)
49. 08:13 PM - 2005 List of Contributors (Update)... (Matt Dralle)
50. 09:07 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Wayne Sweet)
51. 09:21 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
52. 09:42 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
53. 10:19 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Werner Schneider)
54. 11:19 PM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses 32 volt. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
55. 11:23 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
56. 11:24 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (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: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
Stormy,
Sorry if I was a bit over the top. I fully agree that a good
autopilot will make for a lower workload, and a better IFR platform.
But you need to be sure to have the skills and currency to get back
on the ground if the autopilot ever fails.
I've got a Navaid wing leveler, and I'm pondering options to add
altitude hold after I get flying.
Kevin
On 5 Dec 2005, at 22:08, sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
> --> 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>
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Clark <jclarkmail@gmail.com>
On 12/6/05, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
> nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> 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
Yes. And for reasons of symmetry etc, I chose to use two PC680's with the
plan of rotating one out each year for example.
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.
Yes. Good point that I should have mentioned.
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
I am doing the "dual glass" routine. I do have a single AHRS though (GRT).
The good news is that I can supply voltage to it from BOTH of the
independent electrical systems and not have to worry about one of them
going away (unless of course there is some huge voltage spike on one that
causes some unkown reaction.
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.
True. So true.
And again, there is a lot to be said for additional peace of mind.
James
Bob. . .
>
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james@nextupventures.com .
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: | Temperature compensation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
Hi Bob and all,
I am using several UMA Instruments 1 1/4" thermocouple indicators (Oil
temp, EGT, CHT). The indicators are calibrated at a junction temperature of
75F, so actual reading depends on junction temperature.
Is there an easy way of compensating for temperature variations?
Thanks,
Gilles Tatry
Bcker Jungmann F-PGLT
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: Avionics, ACU, etc version=3.0.3 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bret Smith" <smithhb@tds.net>
Well said, John. Back when I was going through my IFR training, my wise
instructor stated that the autopilot is your primary instrument when flying
solo in IMC. I now agree.
Bret Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Huft" <aflyer@lazy8.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
I have been a CFII for 30+ years. The FAA has changed their stance over
the years.
The current position is that an autopilot, used correctly, makes flight
safer (it always did).
The pilot must be able to fly without it. But it sure reduces fatigue,
saving pilot performance capacity for the high work loads at the end of
the flight (the "safety window")
In fact, the autopilot is often a required flight item for single pilot
Part 135 operations.
So, be able to handle an autopilot failure, but use it. (Just like we
must handle an Attitude Indicator failure - but we use it...)
If you plan to do extended IFR, an autopilot is a good investment.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
<khorton01@rogers.com>
Stormy,
Sorry if I was a bit over the top. I fully agree that a good
autopilot will make for a lower workload, and a better IFR platform.
But you need to be sure to have the skills and currency to get back
on the ground if the autopilot ever fails.
I've got a Navaid wing leveler, and I'm pondering options to add
altitude hold after I get flying.
Kevin
On 5 Dec 2005, at 22:08, sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
> --> 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>
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.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 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
With input like this (see quote from Mike Stewart below), I have come to agree
with your stance, Dan. I trust my future experience with actual IFR training
will confirm it ;-) Kevin, take note...
>>" With the Trio and its very smart chipset, it will drop you on a course line
from ANY intercept with no overshoot. It is truly amazing and it is an absolute
requirement for any real IFR work in an RV."<<
Now the only question for me is the hardest kind of all: not whether to have an
A/P but which one. Already invested in Trio, but wondering if $1400 more for
the TruTrak and its enhanced capabilities isn't the better choice in the long
run.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Beadle <Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
I have been a CFII for 30+ years. The FAA has changed their stance over
the years.
The current position is that an autopilot, used correctly, makes flight
safer (it always did).
The pilot must be able to fly without it. But it sure reduces fatigue,
saving pilot performance capacity for the high work loads at the end of
the flight (the "safety window")
In fact, the autopilot is often a required flight item for single pilot
Part 135 operations.
So, be able to handle an autopilot failure, but use it. (Just like we
must handle an Attitude Indicator failure - but we use it...)
If you plan to do extended IFR, an autopilot is a good investment.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
<khorton01@rogers.com>
Stormy,
Sorry if I was a bit over the top. I fully agree that a good
autopilot will make for a lower workload, and a better IFR platform.
But you need to be sure to have the skills and currency to get back
on the ground if the autopilot ever fails.
I've got a Navaid wing leveler, and I'm pondering options to add
altitude hold after I get flying.
Kevin
On 5 Dec 2005, at 22:08, sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
> --> 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>
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.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 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Very slick for $40. Eric!
I wonder if a cigarette lighter plug mounted version for certified
machines would sell...
Ken
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>snip
>
>
>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
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:34 PM 12/6/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry"
><gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>I am using several UMA Instruments 1 1/4" thermocouple indicators (Oil
>temp, EGT, CHT). The indicators are calibrated at a junction temperature of
>75F, so actual reading depends on junction temperature.
>Is there an easy way of compensating for temperature variations?
Normally, this cold junction compensation is included in the
instrument. Does the data shipped with your instruments indicate
that they are accurate only at 75F and/or that there is no
cold-junction compensation?
This is VERY difficult to add inside an instrument after the fact.
My TC designs almost always rely on features built into TC amplifiers
like the AD597 from Analog Devices.
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/664361174AD596_597_b.pdf
This device will take your raw thermocouple signal and convert
it to a reasonably linear 10 mv/degree-C output. This signal
is then used to drive your instrumentation with compensated,
easily interpreted numbers.
If you wanted to "upgrade" an uncompensated instrument
to take advantage of this device, you'll need to craft a
black-box designed to accomplish the temperature compensation
and scale factors satisfactory the display's needs.
Not REAL hard but probably more than you want to take
on.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Con(fusing) fusible link questions? |
Z11 and Z13
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Z11 and Z13
At 07:24 PM 11/27/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Bob, I understand that we size the fuse to the wire but I am a little
>confused about when and where one would use a fusible link. In the Z11
>figure, you show the E-Bus Alt Feed with a 7a fuse off the main battery bus
>using 16g wire through a 1-3 switch and 16g unprotected wire to the E-Bus.
>Now, in Z13, you show the same thing with a fusible link between the E-bus
>Alt Feed switch and E-Bus.
>
>Questions:
>
>In Z11, are we using the 7a fuse to protect the switch since 16g wire could
>take a 12.5 amp fuse or is it size related to the design load on the E-bus?
Keep in mind that the Z-drawings are illustrations of architecture
and minute details such as wire and fuse sizing may (probably will)
take some consideration and adjustment to meed your design goals.
In the case you cite above I have no way to predict the distance (i.e.
length of wire) between battery bus and the e-bus. While limited in
total performance by the 7A fuse (my personal upper limit for always
hot wire feeders), voltage drop and source-impedance looking back at
the battery can be reduced by making the feeder something larger than
the 7A fuse would have suggested.
>In Z11, why aren't we protecting the wire after the switch since it is hot
>when the master is on and it's a pretty long wire?
Longer than 6" (or some other extraordinarily protected length
of your choice)? Then protect it too. Perhaps a fuse slot on the
e-bus would be appropriate for protection of a long feeder between
e-bus switch and the e-bus. Alternatively, you could deduce that
this wire is all inside the cockpit, well routed, well protected from
mechanical faults to ground and decide it's okay as-shown.
>In Z13, why are we using a 20g fusible link (protects at 7 amps?) on the
>wire after the E-Bus Alt Feed switch but not in the Z11 figure?
This is an example of a design goal decision based on the
considerations above. Given the very protected environment
this wire traverses, perhaps the fusible link is satisfactory.
In fact, it probably is . . . the fusible link offers adequate
protection for the rest of the wires in a bundle if the link is
forced open . . . but it's going to be smoky in the cockpit.
Probability is very low so the fusible link saves a fuse slot
for more useful things, offers real (if not exciting) protection
from a fault that is a very low risk event.
>In the Z13 case, would it be acceptable to run the alt e-bus feed to a tab
>on the e-bus with a 7a fuse instead of using a fusible link to the bus stud?
>Assumes available tab positions.
You betcha!
>I assume that the two 16g wires connecting the D25 Diode are not fused
>because they are very short? Same for the always hot feed from the battery
>to the Main Battery Buss?
Yes.
Your questions are gratifying. You've have a willingness
to sort thought these pieces and evolve good questions that re-enforce
a demonstrated level of understanding. Good work.
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Allow me to chime in one more time. In the Monterey Bay area, we have 5
airports with approaches of some kind, from ILS to GPS only within a 10
minute flight time of one another. It's easy to get many practice approaches
in say 1 1/2 hours. When I started flying my MII, I was a part-time CFII at
the Navy Flying Club, flying 152's to B55 Barons (while it was still in the
club), I was fairly current IFR. It took around 200 hours in my MII to get
comfortable IFR, because it is so sensitive in pitch and heavy in roll (this
plane was made for an AP). At the time I had no AP. Later on a Navaid device
was installed.
Anyway, back to the practice approaches; I like to chose days that the
stratus is in on us with ceilings from MDA minimums to 800' AGL. I had just
installed a GX50 approach approved GPS and was missing the localizer
approach at WVI. I had ask for the GPS 13 to KSNS, which is only 20 miles SE
of WVI. I went miss and climbing out on the missed procedure, getting ATC
clearances and trying to setup the GPS for the next approach............
well if ANYTHING had popped up, like say alternator failure, or smoke in the
cabin, I could not have handled it. I was saturated mentally.
It was not long after that, a Navaid device was installed. It was a huge
help primarily as others have mentioned enroute to enable keeping up with
the airplane. I did not use it on approaches, other than for such situations
as above.
With my current EzPilot, that will intercept and track, it is even better.
With a 2-axis AP with altitude set and climb set, on that missed approach I
had done years before would have been a piece of cake, assuming all those
parameters were set before commencing the LOC approach to WVI.
Hope this gives you the flavor of my point; shooting approaches, IMHO, is by
hand. Doing missed approaches, after of course establishing a rate of climb,
is where they can be huge, even better perhaps than a copilot (AP's don't
yap away when ATC is calling :-)
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.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 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not
to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
+50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the alternator
over 50%-70% of the rated output continuously. So 70-80 amp alternators is
not unreasonable.
________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
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
---------------------------------
Let fate take it's course directly to your email.
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are amps
to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the
alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously. So 70-80 alternators
is not unreasonable.
From: "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
---------------------------------
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: | ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Never seen these mentioned before but it looks like these would be handy to
identify a blown fuse under the panel and might have some other
applications. Would there be any problem using these in place of regular
ATC fuses?
http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_062.PDF
You would think if the fuse blew, the LED would go as well.
Bill S
Do not Archive
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Ah I see. Being a lowly Sport Pilot trainee my plane is for day VFR only so
I forget about lights. The only thing I wouldn't agree with is that the flap
motor affects the size of the alternator. Isn't it just a transient load
that the battery has to handle?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20
amps. Not to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps.
So you are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is
NOT to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously.
So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
From: "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
---------------------------------
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: | ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
These would work just like an illuminated light switch. The "lamp" is wired
in parallel with the fuse element. When the fuse opens the lamp now sees the
voltage. Since the lamp has much higher resistance than the load it sees
almost the full supply voltage. Of course the LED has a dropping resistor in
series with it to limit the current through the LED. The only thing I'm
wondering about is this from web page: "32 volts". So they won't work in a
(12 volt) car or plane. What 32 volt system are they designed for?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
--> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Never seen these mentioned before but it looks like these would be handy to
identify a blown fuse under the panel and might have some other
applications. Would there be any problem using these in place of regular
ATC fuses?
http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_062.PDF
You would think if the fuse blew, the LED would go as well.
Bill S
Do not Archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Regulator VR (better than Ford) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
I was just going on Odysseys recommendation for charging 14.2
to 15.0 volts.
I remember 13.85 volt was the norm in cars, but it seems the
auto industry has migrated to 14.5 volts. I remember all the
problems with the old GelCel batteries in the 80s with the
older auto voltage regulators set at 13.85 volts; it just did not
work well. (We are talking about, automotive regulators and
ostensibly auto battery technology after all, even for certified
light planes.) No doubt the flooded wet cell could live happily
with less voltage, but the SLA, AGM according to the
manufacture needs at least 14.2 volts.
To be fair the VR166 is 14.3 volts, but no doubt there is some
tolerance and you could push the 14.2-volt lower recommended
charge voltage. I have a friend that upped his charge from
approx 14.2 volts to approx 14.5 volts and noticed the battery
provide stronger starts? '
George
Date: Dec 05, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Regulator VR (better than Ford)
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 . . .
---------------------------------
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
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: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
John,
Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for the
EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe to
one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
calibrate.
No, I didn't discuss my solution with BMA. I didn't see a need as they
had already told me I needed the Princeton modules. Maybe BMA will let
you return the modules.
Mark
Lancair ES
-----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>
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 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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Hmmm.... My fully loaded IFR panel (PS7000, GNS530, GNS430, Sandel EHSI,
PN101, WX500, GTX330, Stec 55) only draws 11 amps when everything including
instrument lights are on. Of course, I have a 28v airplane. Must be some
reason I went with 28v.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
amps
to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the
alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously. So 70-80
alternators
is not unreasonable.
From: "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
---------------------------------
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: | ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I have seen them in my auto store for use with 12V.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
--> <craig@craigandjean.com>
These would work just like an illuminated light switch. The "lamp" is
wired in parallel with the fuse element. When the fuse opens the lamp
now sees the voltage. Since the lamp has much higher resistance than the
load it sees almost the full supply voltage. Of course the LED has a
dropping resistor in series with it to limit the current through the
LED. The only thing I'm wondering about is this from web page: "32
volts". So they won't work in a
(12 volt) car or plane. What 32 volt system are they designed for?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
--> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Never seen these mentioned before but it looks like these would be handy
to identify a blown fuse under the panel and might have some other
applications. Would there be any problem using these in place of
regular ATC fuses?
http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_062.PDF
You would think if the fuse blew, the LED would go as well.
Bill S
Do not Archive
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Right, so at 14V your panel would draw 22 amps.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
--> <Bruce@glasair.org>
Hmmm.... My fully loaded IFR panel (PS7000, GNS530, GNS430, Sandel EHSI,
PN101, WX500, GTX330, Stec 55) only draws 11 amps when everything
including instrument lights are on. Of course, I have a 28v airplane.
Must be some reason I went with 28v.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for
the strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over
20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you
are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT
to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously.
So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
From: "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
---------------------------------
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: Temperature compensation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
> Normally, this cold junction compensation is included in the
> instrument. Does the data shipped with your instruments indicate
> that they are accurate only at 75F and/or that there is no
> cold-junction compensation?
UMA's data is quite clear:
"The meter actually reads the differential voltage between the thermocouple
and the cold junctions. Each indicator is calibrated at a junction
temperature of 75F, so actual reading depends on junction temperature. If
junction temperature is higher than 75F then indicator will read one degree
lower for every degree higher and vice versa. In order to minimize this
error locate the cold junctions in a temperature stable environment"
> If you wanted to "upgrade" an uncompensated instrument
> to take advantage of this device, you'll need to craft a
> black-box designed to accomplish the temperature compensation
> and scale factors satisfactory the display's needs.
- Is it possible to have only one compensation device for all the
instruments (at the same temp)?
- I understand that AD596/597 sends out a pretty linear voltage of
10mV/degreeC. But my instruments, normally linked to TCs, must receive
something like (J) 0.05 mV/DegC or (K) 0.04 mV/DegC. How to transform the
value?
- AD 596/597 is calibrated for linearity at ovens temperatures (+60DegC). Is
it correct for use at open cockpit temperatures (typically 0 to +30 DegC)?
Thanks,
Gilles
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Yep!
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com>
Right, so at 14V your panel would draw 22 amps.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
--> <Bruce@glasair.org>
Hmmm.... My fully loaded IFR panel (PS7000, GNS530, GNS430, Sandel EHSI,
PN101, WX500, GTX330, Stec 55) only draws 11 amps when everything
including instrument lights are on. Of course, I have a 28v airplane.
Must be some reason I went with 28v.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for
the strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over
20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you
are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT
to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously.
So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
From: "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
---------------------------------
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Mark -
Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use one
of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
Do you have a schematic?
We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal wires
would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did. With
this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to calibrate
the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce the
error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
John
Lancair ES: Painting
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:15:51 -0600, Mark R Steitle
<mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for the
> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe to
> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
> calibrate.
--
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: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
John,
I'm not sure if they have the capacity (no pun intended) to handle both
probes. Since they're only $.48/ea (Digi-key) I didn't even consider
it.
Mark
-----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 -
Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
one
of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
Do you have a schematic?
We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
wires
would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
With
this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
calibrate
the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
the
error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
John
Lancair ES: Painting
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:15:51 -0600, Mark R Steitle
<mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
the
> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
to
> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
> calibrate.
--
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: | ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
They must be talking about the voltage (arcing?) limit for the fuse element
itself. They describe their plain ATO/ATC as also being "32 volt".
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
--> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I have seen them in my auto store for use with 12V.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
--> <craig@craigandjean.com>
These would work just like an illuminated light switch. The "lamp" is wired
in parallel with the fuse element. When the fuse opens the lamp now sees the
voltage. Since the lamp has much higher resistance than the load it sees
almost the full supply voltage. Of course the LED has a dropping resistor in
series with it to limit the current through the LED. The only thing I'm
wondering about is this from web page: "32 volts". So they won't work in a
(12 volt) car or plane. What 32 volt system are they designed for?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
--> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Never seen these mentioned before but it looks like these would be handy to
identify a blown fuse under the panel and might have some other
applications. Would there be any problem using these in place of regular
ATC fuses?
http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_062.PDF
You would think if the fuse blew, the LED would go as well.
Bill S
Do not Archive
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening George,
I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current draw. The last
time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve volt GA
airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw more and other
units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a couple of
rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy to get the
conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we do not
have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we want to.
Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing lights. I have
never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary tremendously as to the
current required. If they are being used just for landing, that current need
not be considered, but if landing lights are used for conspicuity purposes,
they are no longer intermittent loads and MUST be considered.
Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the amount of
power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
conspicuity lighting.
Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity lighting, a
good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a full panel
of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage requirement up to
forty amps with a twelve volt system.
My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time current
draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps up to
twenty-five or so.
Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I can see the
need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped twelve volt OBAM
aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
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 12/6/2005 2:43:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
amps
to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the
alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously. So 70-80
alternators
is not unreasonable.
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: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Mark -
Do you have a shematic for making up the voltage regulators?
Thanks,
John
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:24:47 -0600, Mark R Steitle
<mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> John,
> I'm not sure if they have the capacity (no pun intended) to handle both
> probes. Since they're only $.48/ea (Digi-key) I didn't even consider
> it.
> Mark
--
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
At 04:46 PM 12/6/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
>conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced.
And this, my friends, is an exciting new OBAM frontier.
Dave Morris
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
Interesting conversation, everyone. I concur that at 80 A I am probably
over doing it more than absolutely necessary. Although my EFI controller,
pumps & injectors suck electrons like they are going out of style, I am sure
I could live with 60A.
To bring it back to the question I was asking -- can anyone suggest where I
can source a nice externally regulated auto alternator? As I mentioned at
the top of the thread, I have found an 80 for $89 from Summit Racing.
Mark Supinski
On 12/6/05, BobsV35B@aol.com <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Evening George,
>
> I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current draw. The
> last
> time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve volt GA
> airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw more
> and other
> units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a couple of
> rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy to get the
> conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
>
> Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we do not
> have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we
> want to.
> Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing lights. I
> have
> never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary tremendously as to
> the
> current required. If they are being used just for landing, that current
> need
> not be considered, but if landing lights are used for conspicuity
> purposes,
> they are no longer intermittent loads and MUST be considered.
>
> Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the amount
> of
> power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
> conspicuity lighting.
>
> Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity lighting, a
> good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a full
> panel
> of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage requirement up
> to
> forty amps with a twelve volt system.
>
> My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time current
> draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps up to
> twenty-five or so.
>
> Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
> conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I can see
> the
> need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped twelve volt
> OBAM
> aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:40 PM 12/6/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for
> the strobes
>and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not to
>mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
>amps
>to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the
>alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously. So 70-80
>alternators
>is not unreasonable.
>
>
>From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
>Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
>
>
>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?
What you're missing is a load analysis. This is a document you
craft that takes into consideration real, continuous duty loads
imposed on your alternator for the various phases of flight. The
vast majority of alternators are picked based on "if 60A is good
for Cessna, 60A is good for me too".
You'll see lots of numbers literally tossed around which may
or may not apply to your system. I've done load analysis for
a number of clients and with rare exception (heated seats
and or electric toe warmers) a power budget of 27A x 14V or
375 watts was the max continuous load current draw. This allowed
use of 40A alternators which combined nicely with 16# SVLA batteries
and 10.5# starters to offer the lightest weight systems flying
at the time.
An example of this exercise is illustrated in the Excel
file at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/RV-9A%20amp_draw.xls
This is an excellent start accomplished by one of the List
readers some months ago. It needs some combing out. For
example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
There may be other things to shuffle around . . . but it's
a great start.
It has value only if you plug in real numbers for equipment
items you anticipate using under various flight modes. Of
course, the easy way is install and 80A machine and I can
guarantee that unless you're running some kind of electric
heat . . . you're going to have PLENTY of snort.
It just depends on your design goals.
Bob . . .
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: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:51 PM 12/6/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>
>Never seen these mentioned before but it looks like these would be handy to
>identify a blown fuse under the panel and might have some other
>applications. Would there be any problem using these in place of regular
>ATC fuses?
>
>http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_062.PDF
>
>You would think if the fuse blew, the LED would go as well.
Like 99.99% of all breakers installed on airplanes, 99.99%
of all fuses installed will run the lifetime of the airplane
and never be asked to answer to an overload condition. You
have to deduce your personal return on investment model. There's
no system design reason not to use them.
Bob . . .
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: | ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:10 PM 12/6/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>These would work just like an illuminated light switch. The "lamp" is wired
>in parallel with the fuse element. When the fuse opens the lamp now sees the
>voltage. Since the lamp has much higher resistance than the load it sees
>almost the full supply voltage. Of course the LED has a dropping resistor in
>series with it to limit the current through the LED. The only thing I'm
>wondering about is this from web page: "32 volts". So they won't work in a
>(12 volt) car or plane. What 32 volt system are they designed for?
The 32v rating on automotive fuses is based on worst case fault currents
and the maximum voltage the fuse is guaranteed to break under that fault.
The leds will probably provide visible illumination over the full range
of system voltages that might call out this style fuse . . . 6-32 volts.
Bob . . .
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:37 PM 12/6/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry"
><gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
>
> > Normally, this cold junction compensation is included in the
> > instrument. Does the data shipped with your instruments indicate
> > that they are accurate only at 75F and/or that there is no
> > cold-junction compensation?
>
>UMA's data is quite clear:
>
>"The meter actually reads the differential voltage between the thermocouple
>and the cold junctions. Each indicator is calibrated at a junction
>temperature of 75F, so actual reading depends on junction temperature. If
>junction temperature is higher than 75F then indicator will read one degree
>lower for every degree higher and vice versa. In order to minimize this
>error locate the cold junctions in a temperature stable environment"
Very good. If this bothers you, you can do a variety of things
to "correct" the readings.
> > If you wanted to "upgrade" an uncompensated instrument
> > to take advantage of this device, you'll need to craft a
> > black-box designed to accomplish the temperature compensation
> > and scale factors satisfactory the display's needs.
>
>- Is it possible to have only one compensation device for all the
>instruments (at the same temp)?
>- I understand that AD596/597 sends out a pretty linear voltage of
>10mV/degreeC. But my instruments, normally linked to TCs, must receive
>something like (J) 0.05 mV/DegC or (K) 0.04 mV/DegC. How to transform the
>value?
Your instruments designed to work directly from thermocouples
are calibrated in millivolts. You'd have to place calibrating
resistors in series to re-scale them to 10mv/C.
>- AD 596/597 is calibrated for linearity at ovens temperatures (+60DegC). Is
>it correct for use at open cockpit temperatures (typically 0 to +30 DegC)?
Depends on how much you're going to worry about uncertainty of
measurements. Ordinary thermocouple wire is graded to an
accuracy of 2C. The AD597 itself has an error budget. It may
well be that without specifically calibrating each instrument
in-situ using the same thermocouple and signal conditioner
used in flight will you be able to drive the error budged down
to say plus or minus 1 degree C. What are your design goals?
After you've established requirements, you can begin to craft
the hardware needed to meet the requirements.
I can design signal conditioners that would probably get you
0.1 degree C accuracy at two points on each instrument . . .
can't vouch for in-between without characterizing each
instrument.
I can tell you that the CHT gages on decades of production
Cessnas sucked big time. They could be re-calibrated (I
designed a fixture to do it) but not one dealership in
100 ever ordered the fixture. I've not been aware of any
issues jumping up over gross inaccuracies of CHT readings
mostly because folks don't really KNOW how bad their particular
instruments might be. It's amazing what happens to the
worry-factor when you get answers to questions that few
people ever ask!
Bob . . .
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/6/2005 5:28:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
For example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
Good Evening Bob,
This statement bothers me just a bit. I have been running around for at
least ten thousand hours at night using both pitot heat and running lights.
Most of that time I also had some sort of beacon, strobes or both doing their
thing. Was I doing it all wrong?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | battery tenders again |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
Hi all,
I have a tender that puts out 12.75 volts with no load and one that puts out 13.0
volts. Is either one satisfactory? Are these voltages ''better than nothing''
or is one or both worthless? Thanks in advance, bob n.
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: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
The idea is that if you are flying in a cold cloud you need pitot heat,
but not lights (nobody could see you anyway). If you are in and out of
clouds, or flying through night VFR snow showers (is that ever a really a
good idea?), maybe you need both turned on.
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/6/2005 5:28:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
>
> For example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
>
>
> Good Evening Bob,
>
> This statement bothers me just a bit. I have been running around for
> at least ten thousand hours at night using both pitot heat and running
> lights. Most of that time I also had some sort of beacon, strobes or
> both doing their thing. Was I doing it all wrong?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Bob ...
The only thing wrong was ... part of that 10,000 hrs were with United
instead of American. Joking of course! : )
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
> For example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
> This statement bothers me just a bit. I have been running around for at
> least ten thousand hours at night using both pitot heat and running
> lights.
> Most of that time I also had some sort of beacon, strobes or both doing
> their
> thing. Was I doing it all wrong?
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Matt,
I rather thought that might be the idea, but I do not think it holds water.
I have flown in many icing conditions where the visibility was such that
lighting was a good idea.
On top of that, my recollection of the requirements for running lights do
not suggest that they be turned off when in cloud.
There is a provision somewhere that allows a pilot to turn off a rotating
bacon or strobe if that light is causing difficulty for the pilot while in
cloud, but I know of no such provision which allows a pilot to not use running
lights during the hours they are required. To turn them off in cloud would
seem to me to be only legal if it were done in connection with an emergency.
Depending on the conditions, I am not sure how even turning them of in an
emergency could be comfortably supported at a hearing!
I run with running lights on between sunset and sunrise even if I don't
really have to do it that long. I also run with pitot heat on any time there
is
any moisture in the air at all. I have been in hundreds of snow showers and
light mist or rain where I wanted pitot heat, yet the visibility was well
over three miles.
I believe it is unreasonable to plan on an either/or situation between pitot
heat and running lights.
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 12/6/2005 6:43:06 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather@spro.net writes:
The idea is that if you are flying in a cold cloud you need pitot heat,
but not lights (nobody could see you anyway). If you are in and out of
clouds, or flying through night VFR snow showers (is that ever a really a
good idea?), maybe you need both turned on.
Matt-
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/6/2005 6:50:58 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jerry@mc.net writes:
Bob ...
The only thing wrong was ... part of that 10,000 hrs were with United
instead of American. Joking of course! : )
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Good Evening Jerry,
I applied for both the same day. Even stopped by American's office before I
stopped at UAL.
UAL called first.
Had I gone with American, I would have ended up a bit more senior the last
few years, but even with the loss of our pension, I have no regrets. It was
fun while it lasted!
Do Not Archive!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 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: battery tenders again |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Bob,
The battery tenders provide up to 1.25 Amps to your batteries until they
sense the battery is charged and
then they'll lay low until they need another boost. Doubt you've got a
problem but a better explanation of
their function is on this site. I use one for each of my batteries in
the plane and they stay up nicely.
http://www.superiorcarcare.net/batterytender1.html
Larry McFarland
bob noffs wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
>
>Hi all,
>I have a tender that puts out 12.75 volts with no load and one that puts out 13.0
volts. Is either one satisfactory? Are these voltages ''better than nothing''
or is one or both worthless? Thanks in advance, bob n.
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top. Does
this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening George,
I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current draw. The
last
time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve volt GA
airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw more and
other units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a couple
of rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy to get
the conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we do not
have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we want to.
Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing lights. I
have never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary tremendously as
to the current required. If they are being used just for landing, that
current need not be considered, but if landing lights are used for
conspicuity purposes, they are no longer intermittent loads and MUST be
considered.
Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the amount of
power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
conspicuity lighting.
Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity lighting, a
good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a full
panel of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage
requirement up to forty amps with a twelve volt system.
My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time current
draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps up to
twenty-five or so.
Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I can see
the need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped twelve
volt OBAM aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
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 12/6/2005 2:43:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20
amps. Not to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric
flaps. So you are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common
wisdom is NOT to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output
continuously. So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:40 PM 12/6/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top. Does
>this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
What's the load analysis on an "IFR/lighted plane"?
Bob . . .
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60
> amps top. Does this mean that they have no alternators
> suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
>
> -- Craig
What are you guys putting in those planes? In my plane with: Garmin 430,
327, 340, King Com, C2000 Autopilot, electric TC, nav lights, strobes, panel
lights, pitot heat, Lasar ignition, boost pump it only draws about 36 amps.
Turn on also the landing lights and it goes a bit over 42 amps from the 40
amp alternator. Big deal, so the battery puts out a little for
takeoff/landings (boost pump). What else do you plan to run simultaneously
during IFR flights?
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 696 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
I've got lighting and pitot heat, with a 60 amp alternator, and I've
got some capacity left over for heated seat if need be.
You don't need a nuclear power plant to feed these things. An
electrical load analysis, and a bit of discretion when choosing
electrically powered items go a long ways.
Kevin Horton
On 6 Dec 2005, at 21:40, Craig Payne wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps
> top. Does
> this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted
> plane?
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> BobsV35B@aol.com
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Evening George,
>
> I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current
> draw. The
> last
> time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve
> volt GA
> airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw
> more and
> other units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a
> couple
> of rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy
> to get
> the conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
>
> Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we
> do not
> have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we
> want to.
>
> Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing
> lights. I
> have never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary
> tremendously as
> to the current required. If they are being used just for landing,
> that
> current need not be considered, but if landing lights are used for
> conspicuity purposes, they are no longer intermittent loads and
> MUST be
> considered.
>
> Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the
> amount of
> power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
> conspicuity lighting.
>
> Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity
> lighting, a
> good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a
> full
> panel of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage
> requirement up to forty amps with a twelve volt system.
>
> My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time
> current
> draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps
> up to
> twenty-five or so.
>
> Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot
> and LED
> conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I
> can see
> the need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped
> twelve
> volt OBAM aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
>
> 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 12/6/2005 2:43:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
>
> You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps
> for the
> strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is
> over 20
> amps. Not to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric
> flaps. So you are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well
> common
> wisdom is NOT to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output
> continuously. So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
>
>
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: ATO/ATC Fuses 32 volt. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: G McNutt <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The 32v rating on automotive fuses is based on worst case fault currents
> and the maximum voltage the fuse is guaranteed to break under that fault.
> The leds will probably provide visible illumination over the full range
> of system voltages that might call out this style fuse . . . 6-32 volts.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
Interesting. I took a closer look at my 80 amp Littlefuse alternator
fuse and noticed that it is also stamped 32V in very small print.
This is at the firewall on a 60 amp B&C alternator feed line. Since it
is really protecting the wire & not the alternator it should be OK or do
I need a smaller fuse??
George in Langley BC.
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:49 PM 12/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 12/6/2005 5:28:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
>
>For example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
>
>
>Good Evening Bob,
>
>This statement bothers me just a bit. I have been running around for at
>least ten thousand hours at night using both pitot heat and running lights.
>Most of that time I also had some sort of beacon, strobes or both doing
>their
>thing. Was I doing it all wrong?
When you've got power to burn . . . one can obviously run
everything they wish. But when you're in a cloud with pitot
heat on, lights are superfluous and perhaps even dangerous
(The A36 I used to fly was placarded against exterior
lights in clouds).
Further, if you're in icing conditions in a light aircraft,
things are really busy in the cockpit. One presumes that any
other airplane in the vicinity is in a similar modus operandi.
If one pokes into such conditions regularly I would hope it's
under positive control where other aircraft are under the same
control. Virtually every mid-air was brought to pass by two
to four pilots all having their heads down. Unless you fly IFR
with a lookout pilot, probability that exterior lighting has
any chance of averting a mid-air is a real stretch . . .
especially when its the OTHER guy who needs to have his lights on!
What's the chances of him having a lookout?
So, it's conceivable that one could power up everything needed
for flight into clouds with a rather respectable power budget.
If you have a REAL icing condition, pitot heat is only there
to help you get out of those conditions quickly. Again, exterior
lighting is no help (except perhaps to see how much ice has
stuck to the wings and windshield). My personal design goals
would not call for an extra 20A of alternator output that's
rarely needed to operate lights that have minimal probability
of being useful.
I make an extra effort to stay clear of such conditions in
airplanes not outfitted to deal with the 99th percentile
icing environment. Designing a system that allows me to
run lights and deice the pitot tube too just doesn't fit
my policy and procedure for the elegant/prudent design.
It's a trade-off. I prefer to plan to stay/get out
of places where pitot heat is needed as opposed to planning
to run pitot heat along with lots of other goodies that
MIGHT help some equally silly pilot avoid hitting me
while we cruise through the crud together.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: battery tenders again |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:51 PM 12/6/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
>
>Hi all,
>I have a tender that puts out 12.75 volts with no load and one that puts
>out 13.0 volts. Is either one satisfactory? Are these voltages ''better
>than nothing'' or is one or both worthless? Thanks in advance, bob n.
No load voltage is not necessarily the real float voltage.
Hook them up to a battery and come back 24 hours later for
the measurement. A fully charged battery will have a
terminal voltage on the order of 12.9 volts. A real battery
tender should lift it up to something above 13.0 but not
higher than 13.5 or so.
But not having a battery attached may confuse the "smarts"
in your chargers. The agile maintainer will have a recharge
curve for a discharged battery that looks like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
This is a Schumacher product that "tops off" a battery
at 14.9 to 15.0 volts for about an hour before relaxing
to the maintenance level of 13.1 volts.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Don't know, ain't got one. I do have a nice spreadsheet for my day VFR plane
with columns for "essential steady-state", "essential transient", "main
steady-state" and "main transient". I run on a John Deere 20 amp PM
alternator.
I may be being too subtle but I'm trying to imply that given the alternators
that B&C sells is there a real need for ratings over 60 amps? Or is there a
huge untapped market for alternators over 60 amps? What do GA fully-loaded
factory planes come with?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:40 PM 12/6/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top.
>Does this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted
plane?
What's the load analysis on an "IFR/lighted plane"?
Bob . . .
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: | 2005 List of Contributors (Update)... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
There seemed to a number of members that were having a problem viewing the List
of Contributors this year, particularly for those using some versions of Outlook
and some web-based email clients. Just to make sure that everyone is properly
acknowledged for their generous support of the Lists this year, I have made
a simple web page with the current contributees as of 12/06/05. This can viewed
here:
http://www.matronics.com/ListOfContributors2005.html
Thank you to everyone that made a contribution this year. The Contribution web
site with all of this year's great gifts is still open for those of you that
would like to show your last minute support!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thanks again to everyone that supported the Lists this year!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email Lists Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
do not archive
Message 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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I have a B&C 40 amp alternator in my MII. IT has a full IFR panel, two
landing lights, boost pump, all the usual night stuff and two axis auto
pilots. The only time it can't keep up is night taxy with everything on. The
alternator needs 1500 engine rpm to produce a full 40 amps, so the battery
has to carry the load during night taxy, unless one wing light is turned off
along with the boost pump.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top.
> Does
> this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> BobsV35B@aol.com
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Evening George,
>
> I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current draw. The
> last
> time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve volt GA
> airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw more
> and
> other units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a couple
> of rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy to get
> the conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
>
> Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we do not
> have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we want
> to.
>
> Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing lights. I
> have never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary tremendously
> as
> to the current required. If they are being used just for landing, that
> current need not be considered, but if landing lights are used for
> conspicuity purposes, they are no longer intermittent loads and MUST be
> considered.
>
> Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the amount
> of
> power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
> conspicuity lighting.
>
> Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity lighting, a
> good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a full
> panel of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage
> requirement up to forty amps with a twelve volt system.
>
> My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time current
> draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps up to
> twenty-five or so.
>
> Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
> conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I can see
> the need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped twelve
> volt OBAM aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
>
> 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 12/6/2005 2:43:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
>
> You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
> strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20
> amps. Not to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric
> flaps. So you are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common
> wisdom is NOT to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output
> continuously. So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
>
>
>
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Craig,
I think the 60 amp would be plenty for a well equipped IFR airplane. The
recommended maximum steady load is that it be no more than eighty percent of the
full output. Eighty percent of 60 is 48 Amps. The examples I gave would top
out under the worst case conditions at forty-five to fifty amps. Sounds
very doable to me. And if more modern components are used, the power
requirements are reduced, I have two rotating Grimes beacons and triple strobes
on my
airplane. That load could be reduced considerably and still provide equal
conspicuity. A TruTrac autopilot uses quite a bit less power than the ancient
S-Tec and King offerings.
My message was meant to point out that even the very heavily equipped IFR
airplanes will still have loads that can be easily carried by the ubiquitous
sixty ampere twelve volt units. If you go to twenty-four volts, thirty would be
adequate, but I would probably shoot for forty and be able to carry landing
lights without using battery power.
Fifty years ago, I was regularly flying IFR in a Bonanza that had a
twenty-five ampere generator. When I went to a thirty-five amp generator, I thought
I had died and gone to Heaven. However, we were taught to husband our
available amperage very carefully. We used landing lights sparingly and didn't
have conspicuity lighting. Some airliners used flashing lights and had ice
lights to light up the wings. We would often turn on the ice lights in high
traffic areas to help with conspicuity. Things are much better today. We have
ten times as much navigational capability and it probably use half as much
power as did our sets fifty years ago.
If I were building an OBAM heavy IFR airplane with a twelve volt system, I
would probably choose a B&C sixty amp alternator as primary and back it up
with a twenty amp standby unit. If I were using a twenty-eight volt system, I
would use a forty amp unit for primary and still go for the twenty as backup
only because there doesn't seem to be much available smaller than twenty.
Life IS good!
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 12/6/2005 8:44:26 P.M. Central Standard Time,
craig@craigandjean.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
<craig@craigandjean.com>
Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top. Does
this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
-- Craig
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Bob,
This is one of those points where I must respectfully disagree with your
conclusions.
There are many very safe conditions where pitot tube heat is desirable and
where lighting is required by the regulations.
I think if you will reread that A36 handbook, you will not find anything
that tells you not to operate exterior lighting during the hours that such
lighting is required by the FARs. That requirement applies to both experimental
and certificated aircraft. There have been occasional suggestions in many
operational specifications that rotating beacons and other conspicuity lighting
not be used when flying within cloud, but I do not believe you will ever find
any FAA approved operating specification that will tell you to operate with NO
exterior lighting during night time hours.
When it gets to the point of deciding whether any particular flight is being
operated safely or unsafely, I am perfectly willing to present my
operational decisions at any hearing called to evaluate my decisions.
Your personal minima may well be established at some point other than mine.
I may be more aggressive, or you may be more aggressive. I will never tell you
how you should fly your airplane, but I will suggest that you should make
every effort to stay within the letter and the intent of the applicable
regulations.
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 12/6/2005 9:52:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
I make an extra effort to stay clear of such conditions in
airplanes not outfitted to deal with the 99th percentile
icing environment. Designing a system that allows me to
run lights and deice the pitot tube too just doesn't fit
my policy and procedure for the elegant/prudent design.
It's a trade-off. I prefer to plan to stay/get out
of places where pitot heat is needed as opposed to planning
to run pitot heat along with lots of other goodies that
MIGHT help some equally silly pilot avoid hitting me
while we cruise through the crud together.
Bob . . .
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
Not with modern equipment:
strobes 3 A old aeroflash 3.1 (inrush 3.3)
LED Nav/Pos Light < 2A old aeroflash 7.4A (inrush 10.84)
HID Light 4 A old 7.7 (inrush 8.7)
And with my glascockpit I see VFR 7-8 Amps (1 Nav-Com, 1 Com,
Audiopanel, GPS, D-10A, EMS-10, uEncoder, digitrak, altrak (however AP
on standby in turbulent weather +2A), Lasar Ignition std. master relais
(0.7A), etc) so I still believe your 50A are a tad on the high side.
br Werner
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not
to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
+50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the alternator
over 50%-70% of the rated output continuously. So 70-80 amp alternators is
not unreasonable.
>
> ________________________________________________________
> From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
> Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
>
> 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
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
> Let fate take it's course directly to your email.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Fuses 32 volt. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:29 PM 12/6/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: G McNutt <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > The 32v rating on automotive fuses is based on worst case fault currents
> > and the maximum voltage the fuse is guaranteed to break under that
> fault.
> > The leds will probably provide visible illumination over the full range
> > of system voltages that might call out this style fuse . . . 6-32 volts.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>Interesting. I took a closer look at my 80 amp Littlefuse alternator
>fuse and noticed that it is also stamped 32V in very small print.
>This is at the firewall on a 60 amp B&C alternator feed line. Since it
>is really protecting the wire & not the alternator it should be OK or do
>I need a smaller fuse??
Nope. 80A is fine.
Bob . . .
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:01 PM 12/6/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Don't know, ain't got one. I do have a nice spreadsheet for my day VFR plane
>with columns for "essential steady-state", "essential transient", "main
>steady-state" and "main transient". I run on a John Deere 20 amp PM
>alternator.
>
>I may be being too subtle but I'm trying to imply that given the alternators
>that B&C sells is there a real need for ratings over 60 amps? Or is there a
>huge untapped market for alternators over 60 amps? What do GA fully-loaded
>factory planes come with?
We put 100 or 125A machines on the Bonanzas with
hot props and windshield patches . . . and that's
a 28v airplane. Under some conditions, all that snort
is needed to satisfy the load analysis.
Cessna went to 60A, 28v on all single engine airplanes
so that one regulator and one alternator fits all models.
The C-152 didn't come close to needing all that snort.
The load analysis does three things for you. (1) You craft the
various 'plans' for dealing with failures so that you can
(2) size the battery for desired endurance performance and
(3) size alternator for max continuous loads plus 25%
to leave headroom for charging a battery.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:05 PM 12/6/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
>I have a B&C 40 amp alternator in my MII. IT has a full IFR panel, two
>landing lights, boost pump, all the usual night stuff and two axis auto
>pilots. The only time it can't keep up is night taxy with everything on. The
>alternator needs 1500 engine rpm to produce a full 40 amps, so the battery
>has to carry the load during night taxy, unless one wing light is turned off
>along with the boost pump.
So you may be undersized. You can't run ramp and taxi loads
and still have sufficient headroom to recharge the battery.
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! --
|