Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:20 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Mickey Coggins)
2. 03:35 AM - Cessna Automatic 300A Question - NAV2 (Roberto Honorato)
3. 03:40 AM - Re: Temperature compensation (Gilles Tatry)
4. 04:50 AM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Greg Campbell)
5. 05:02 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
6. 05:08 AM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 05:15 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 05:27 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 05:33 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 05:38 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Ken)
11. 05:38 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (bob rundle)
12. 06:18 AM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Bill Denton)
14. 06:54 AM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Mark R Steitle)
15. 06:55 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
16. 07:43 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
17. 08:03 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 08:27 AM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (John Schroeder)
19. 08:35 AM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (John Schroeder)
20. 09:02 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
21. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 09:35 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Mickey Coggins)
23. 09:47 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
24. 10:07 AM - Re: Looking for alternator (true lies and exaggeration's) ()
25. 10:34 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (David Lloyd)
26. 10:55 AM - very dumb question about crimping (Phil Hooper)
27. 11:37 AM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 11:37 AM - Spare Fuses vs. Fumble Factor - and Crossbow NAV425 AHRS failures... (Greg Campbell)
29. 11:57 AM - RES: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Roberto Honorato)
30. 12:02 PM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Greg Campbell)
31. 01:24 PM - Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 01:32 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
33. 02:01 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
34. 02:04 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Steve Sampson)
35. 02:13 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Craig Payne)
36. 02:23 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Craig Payne)
37. 02:43 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Craig Payne)
38. 02:44 PM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Craig Payne)
39. 03:42 PM - Re: Battery OV event testing (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
40. 03:45 PM - Re: PM alternator requlators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
41. 04:37 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (William Slaughter)
42. 05:27 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Phil Hooper)
43. 05:32 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Bill Schlatterer)
44. 05:46 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Dan Billingsley)
45. 05:47 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Craig Payne)
46. 05:53 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
47. 06:16 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Craig Payne)
48. 06:28 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (William Slaughter)
49. 06:30 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
50. 06:53 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Dave Morris \)
51. 07:27 PM - Re: Question about crimping (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
52. 07:28 PM - Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification (Bryan Hooks)
53. 07:30 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
54. 07:41 PM - modern alternators (Jim and Lucy)
55. 07:49 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
56. 08:57 PM - Re: Pitot tube design and functionality (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
57. 09:11 PM - Re: SD-8 Noise levels (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
58. 09:35 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Phil Hooper)
59. 09:37 PM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Phil Hooper)
60. 11:01 PM - Re: Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification (G McNutt)
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> 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.
Just a (probably dumb) side question but does the load on
the engine vary with the load on the alternator?
In other words, assuming 80% alternator efficiency, will
a 60 amp 14.5v load require 1 hp from the engine, and a
30 amp load require 0.5 hp?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cessna Automatic 300A Question - NAV2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roberto Honorato" <roberto.honorato@williamaeronautica.com.br>
Hello!
I need to connect the deviation information of a KMD150 in a system
that uses Navomatic 300A, the Control head/computer had the PN 42660-1202
and model CA395A.
Does anybody know the number of the pins of the NAV2 inputs of the
Automatic Pilot Cessna NAVOMATIC 300A?
Thanks in advance
Robert
--
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 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"
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 . . .
Bob,
My first design goal is compliance with engine limitations:
- CHT max: 240 DegC
- Oil Temp: Max out to the radiator 105 DegC
Max in from the radiator: 90 DegC
With my uncompensated instruments, the hotter the day, the lower the
indicated temp, compared to reality... Rather inadequate, too easy to
inadvertently overtake limitations! (I have an old Tigre engine on my
Jungmann, and need to take care of it).
For limitation purpose, I could compensate for the worst case only: hottest
day, and temperature reaching limitation. Sufficient, but somewhat
inelegant...
I am not worried with the EGT, as I am only interested in peak detection,
for mixture setting.
My second goal deals with flight testing
- High engine temp sollicitation during climb performance flights
(limitations again)
- Testing different oil radiator installations, which needs some kind of
accuracy (2 DegC is enough, I can hardly read it on my 1 1/4" dials)
On a test climb to 14 500 ft ceiling, ambient temp will vary of about 30
DegC.
Ground temps typically vary in a 40 DegC range in the year, here in
Toulouse.
Gilles
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: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Campbell <gregcampbellusa@gmail.com>
I've seen the "light up" fuses before -
and here are two things to consider:
1) They only light up when the associated load is connected & "ON"...
i.e. some load is "trying" to draw current thru the fuse.
Without a connected load - the LED or light or whatever won't light up
even if the fuse is blown. So if you turn OFF whatever smoked the fuse,
you also won't have a light in the fuse panel. (The "keep-alive" current
in some radios might be enough to activate the fuse's LED.)
2) If you're probing a supposedly "dead" circuit with a sensitive voltmeter,
it won't look like a completely dead circuit due to the limited current
trickling through the LED or other light on the fuse. If you're probing,
looking for zero volts (or amps) - you will get strange readings that vary with
the
device's load.
So while they seemed like a good idea the first time I saw them,
I passed on them in the end for most applications and they sit on the shelf.
My $0.02,
Greg
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Did I miss something here? What's the big deal with oversizing your alternator
a bit? Other than more money, more cooling requirements, and a fraction of
a HP less I don't see what the big deal is. I'm all for putting in only what's
required but where is the big negative of putting in a 60amp compared to a
40amp that warrants this much conversation?
Incidentally I am putting in 4 heated seats that have a draw of 10amps each.
This is leading me to probably a 70amp Plane Power alternator (which is cheaper
than another companies 60amp). I plan on only running the alternator at 85%
or so which only gives me about 20amps for everything else should everyone want
toasty behinds at once. Personally I see no reason to ever use more of a load
than your alternator can put out especially if you happen to be running an
electrically dependent aircraft.
Also, last I checked, position lights are required in all flight conditions at
night and strobes or other similar lighting should be run unless causing enough
glare to warrant shutting them down. Clouds or no clouds, when I'm the PIC
the buck stops with me, not with ATC's ability to provide separation, and I
like to know that I just may be seen that fraction of a second sooner to avoid
a midair if ATC is in the head. To mess around turning off exterior lights,
if they are not a factor, in heavy workload environment is inviting that first
little mistake to start the ball rolling.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:48 AM 12/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Campbell
><gregcampbellusa@gmail.com>
>
>I've seen the "light up" fuses before -
>and here are two things to consider:
>
>1) They only light up when the associated load is connected & "ON"...
>i.e. some load is "trying" to draw current thru the fuse.
>Without a connected load - the LED or light or whatever won't light up
>even if the fuse is blown. So if you turn OFF whatever smoked the fuse,
>you also won't have a light in the fuse panel. (The "keep-alive" current
>in some radios might be enough to activate the fuse's LED.)
>
>2) If you're probing a supposedly "dead" circuit with a sensitive voltmeter,
>it won't look like a completely dead circuit due to the limited current
>trickling through the LED or other light on the fuse. If you're probing,
>looking for zero volts (or amps) - you will get strange readings that vary
>with the
>device's load.
>
>So while they seemed like a good idea the first time I saw them,
>I passed on them in the end for most applications and they sit on the shelf.
' Great explanation!
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:18 AM 12/7/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
><mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> > 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.
>
>Just a (probably dumb) side question but does the load on
>the engine vary with the load on the alternator?
>
>In other words, assuming 80% alternator efficiency, will
>a 60 amp 14.5v load require 1 hp from the engine, and a
>30 amp load require 0.5 hp?
The mechanical load is proportional to the electrical
load. 1 hp = 746 watts. 60A * 14.5v = 870 watts or
1.15 hp out. Divide by 0.8 for efficiency and we get
1.46 hp input. 30A load on the same setup would require
0.73 hp input from the engine.
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:39 AM 12/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> 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.
<snip>
Understand. I believe the placard referred only to the
anti collision lighting but on the few cases where I
found myself going through a layer at night, reflections
from the position lights were distracting especially as
the layer thinned and variability in reflection produced
a lot of visual "activity" in peripheral vision.
The first airplanes to fly at night carried only position
lights. It didn't take long for folks to realize that these
little critters were insufficient for giving other pilots
a heads-up on approaching traffic and they starting sticking
beacons and strobes on the airplanes. The logic that
position lights are sacrosanct with respect to see-and-avoid
after you've already been given 'permission' to shut the
big puppies off escapes me. But then, the logic behind
much of what the FAA does escapes me too.
I suppose some bureaucrat could gig me for the practice
but he wasn't sitting in my seat. Just 'cause the
regulations say that position lights are a useful thing
to do under all conditions doesn't make it so.
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:17 PM 12/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> 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.
Yep, love those plan-a, plan-b and even plan-c design
decisions. Load analysis is an easy (and necessary) thing to
do when crafting the best return on investment for
weight and cost of ownership.
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
There's also the extra weight including heavier wiring.
Then there is the issue of overvoltage. A battery can handle a small
runaway alternator much longer which may save some expensive
electronics. Perhaps irrelevant with an OVP equipped external voltage
regulated alternator. However it might be a factor with an internal
regulated unit. At the time these were the reasons that I tossed a new
100 amp subaru unit and replaced it with a new 40 amp unit. Saved at
least 6 lbs.
Load dump excursions should also be less severe I think since the
alternator won't put out enough current to handle high inrushes or
intermittant or momentary high load demands. Transorbs could handle most
of that I suppose. Of course with the small alternator I was comfortable
with a small battery which saved even more weight but probably offset
some of what I just said about voltage excursions...
However I personally don't like large alternators coupled to small
batteries.
Ken
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> Did I miss something here? What's the big deal with oversizing your alternator
a bit? Other than more money, more cooling requirements, and a fraction of
a HP less I don't see what the big deal is. I'm all for putting in only what's
required but where is the big negative of putting in a 60amp compared to a
40amp that warrants this much conversation?
>
>
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle" <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
If I'm not going to hook up the 300XL to a NAV indicator then I might as
well just get the GNC250XL. But I already have the 300 and got it for a
good price. Am I not just losing capability if I don't use the 300 and an
IFR unit? Just seems like I'm only using a small piece of the 300s
capability.
Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no way
to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?
BobR
Airplane savy, electrically stupid
>Time: 07:28:09 AM PST US
>From: BobsV35B@aol.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>Good Morning Bob,
>
>I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
>(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of
>that
>many
>components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your
>need
>
>for instrumentation.
>
>Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
>300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR
>only?
>
>
>If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
>always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally <G>.
>
>If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there
>is
>no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>
>Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
>for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just
>as
>well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
>
>As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
>line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness
>or to
>
>follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
>
>Keep It Simple!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8503
>
>
>In a message dated 12/5/2005 8:45:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>bobrundle2@hotmail.com writes:
>
>So what if I only have 1 GI106A? Do I still need this ACU? The G430 will
>change it without the need for an ACU. Right now I;m considering getting
>a
>second GI106A and the ACU to hook up to the G300XL. Would this be the
>best
>solution? As well I presume since I'll be only be doing non-precision
>appracohes with the 300XL then I only need the GI102A, not the 106A
>(glideslope indication as well).
>
>Can someone clarify this for me?
>
>
Message 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Bob,
When I have checked actual selling prices, I have found that the 250XL and
300XL seem to be bringing abut the same over the counter price. That may not
last!
If you have the 300XL, you still have the full approach capability via the
panel unit for emergency purposes. Just about everything you need to make it
work is located within the panel unit. Those annunciators and such are
primarily to jump through FAA regulatory hoops. Now, if you can't mount the 300XL
in a spot where it can be in your primary panel scan, using it as primary
guidance gets more difficult. That is the original reasoning behind providing
for external components.
Utilizing a switching arrangement to share an HSI or other CDI instrument
between a VHF nav unit and a GPS unit saves panel space and puts the guidance
right in the middle of your current style scan.
If it works for you for VHF nav, it will work for you for the GPS.
Were I designing a panel for an OBAM IFR platform, I would not try to stick
with the forty year old "standard" T arrangement. Adjust the radio placement
and the placement of flight instruments so that your scan will accommodate
the way you intend to use the components.
Are you familiar with the look of Navion, Stinson, Piper, Cessna and Beech
panels from the fifties? Most of them had the flight instruments scattered
around the panel to please the manufacturers convenience, the test pilots
thought of where they should be, or the purchaser's philosophy of instrument
flight, but almost all of them had a "Glove Box" radio mounted on the left side
of
the instrument panel.
That left side radio box location has proven to be an excellent location for
a modern GPS unit. The entire panel unit is right in the primary instrument
scan!
There are many much better layouts than the so called "standard" T
arrangement.
While our regulators and many of our industry friends try hard to force us
all into conformity with their ideas of how the world should be, we must
remember that standardization is the mortal enemy of innovation!
Kudos to the free thinker, but keep it legal!
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 12/7/2005 7:42:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bobrundle2@hotmail.com writes:
If I'm not going to hook up the 300XL to a NAV indicator then I might as
well just get the GNC250XL. But I already have the 300 and got it for a
good price. Am I not just losing capability if I don't use the 300 and an
IFR unit? Just seems like I'm only using a small piece of the 300s
capability.
Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no way
to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?
BobR
Airplane savy, electrically stupid
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Another point...
I'm still in the "wishing and hoping and tire kicking" stage, but I hope to
get started on an eLSA sometime next year.
I've been spending quite a bit of time playing with various Panel Planning
software, and something I have been considering is the fact that most of the
aircraft I am looking at have a stick instead of a yoke, and I am
right-handed.
So, my plan is to put everything that has to be "messed with" in flight on
the left hand side of my panel, so I can work them with my left hand while
keeping my right hand on the stick. This would include GPS units, Nav/Com,
autopilot, and if there is enough room, the audio panel. I'm also planning
on putting the light switches and fuel boost pump switch on the left side.
Other electrical switches will be placed on the center console or in another
secondarily-accessible location, on the assumption that you generally only
need to access them at startup and shutdown, when the airplane is on the
ground and not moving.
Most current GPS units and Nav/Coms or Coms (with the notable exception of
the SL 40) and autopilots also allow for some types of stick-mounted
controls, such as frequency flip-flop, autopilot engage and disengage, and
similar functions. I'm planning to use Ray Allen grips and connect the
remote switches to everything I can.
Electric trim and flaps can also be done very cheaply, and with stick
mounted switches.
Which leads to the problem of having more items that can be remotely
controlled than I would have switches available for, but I have a solution
for that, too.
Depending upon what aircraft I build and how many "toys" I put in it, I may
buy an additional Ray Allen grip, and use it on a quadrant-mounted throttle
lever.
A few of the things that have gone into this design philosophy...
- The old "left hand on the throttle, right hand on the stick" paradigm.
- The military's ergonomic design for "HOTAS"; hands-on-throttle-and-stick,
with everything controlled by remote switches.
- Basic ergonomics principles of "what you need to touch and when you need
to touch it".
Hopefully, this will inspire some thinking by the rest of you guys, and
hopefully, some of the old hands will set me straight where my thinking is
foolish...
-----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: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Bob,
When I have checked actual selling prices, I have found that the 250XL and
300XL seem to be bringing abut the same over the counter price. That may
not
last!
If you have the 300XL, you still have the full approach capability via the
panel unit for emergency purposes. Just about everything you need to make it
work is located within the panel unit. Those annunciators and such are
primarily to jump through FAA regulatory hoops. Now, if you can't mount
the 300XL
in a spot where it can be in your primary panel scan, using it as primary
guidance gets more difficult. That is the original reasoning behind
providing
for external components.
Utilizing a switching arrangement to share an HSI or other CDI instrument
between a VHF nav unit and a GPS unit saves panel space and puts the
guidance
right in the middle of your current style scan.
If it works for you for VHF nav, it will work for you for the GPS.
Were I designing a panel for an OBAM IFR platform, I would not try to stick
with the forty year old "standard" T arrangement. Adjust the radio
placement
and the placement of flight instruments so that your scan will accommodate
the way you intend to use the components.
Are you familiar with the look of Navion, Stinson, Piper, Cessna and Beech
panels from the fifties? Most of them had the flight instruments scattered
around the panel to please the manufacturers convenience, the test pilots
thought of where they should be, or the purchaser's philosophy of instrument
flight, but almost all of them had a "Glove Box" radio mounted on the left
side of
the instrument panel.
That left side radio box location has proven to be an excellent location
for
a modern GPS unit. The entire panel unit is right in the primary instrument
scan!
There are many much better layouts than the so called "standard" T
arrangement.
While our regulators and many of our industry friends try hard to force us
all into conformity with their ideas of how the world should be, we must
remember that standardization is the mortal enemy of innovation!
Kudos to the free thinker, but keep it legal!
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 12/7/2005 7:42:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bobrundle2@hotmail.com writes:
If I'm not going to hook up the 300XL to a NAV indicator then I might as
well just get the GNC250XL. But I already have the 300 and got it for a
good price. Am I not just losing capability if I don't use the 300 and an
IFR unit? Just seems like I'm only using a small piece of the 300s
capability.
Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no way
to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?
BobR
Airplane savy, electrically stupid
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: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
John,
It is really a very simple circuit. Go to
www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/LM/LM7805.pdf and scroll down to fig. 8.
That's how I wired my system. The input (+12v) goes to the fuse panel,
the output goes to the capacitive probe circuit input (+5v), and the
other lead goes to ground. And finally, the output from the capacitive
probes goes to the high-frequency input channel on the EFIS/1. The EI
probe circuit also has a ground lead, yours probably does too. Hope
this helps.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
Mark -
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 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/7/2005 7:47:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
The first airplanes to fly at night carried only position
lights. It didn't take long for folks to realize that these
little critters were insufficient for giving other pilots
a heads-up on approaching traffic and they starting sticking
beacons and strobes on the airplanes. The logic that
position lights are sacrosanct with respect to see-and-avoid
after you've already been given 'permission' to shut the
big puppies off escapes me. But then, the logic behind
much of what the FAA does escapes me too.
Good Morning Bob,
As one who had logged several thousand hours in those days before
conspicuity lighting was formalized in the guise of rotating beacons and, later,
strobe
lights, may I add a few things to your thoughts?
Most Douglas DC-3s came from the factory with a red passing light located in
the same wing cutout which contained the left landing light. When we saw
another airplane heading our way, we would flash the passing light. It helped
us all make sure we saw other traffic.
Shortly after WWII, the powers that be decided that running lights should
alternate with white conspicuity lights which were mounted above and below the
airplane.
The running lights alternated with the white conspicuity lights. The idea
was that the flashing lights would add conspicuity, yet we would still have
running lights to guide us and help determine the proper avoidance technique to
be used. Most of us took to turning on every light we had when we were in
high traffic areas. That include the ice lights out on the sides. By the early
fifties, we were told to cease using our ice lights for that purpose
because we were confusing the directional perception that was needed to determine
which way to maneuver.
Capital airlines came up with the idea of mounting a police "Mars' light on
the top of a couple of their DC-4s. They tried both amber and red lenses. We
all found that the Capital idea helped a lot. Grimes came up with an FAA
approved version and rotating beacons were on the way. It was determined that
the flashing running lights interfered with our being able to determine
direction of travel.
Flashing, occulting or alternating running lights were declared illegal so
that we could best use them for their original purpose which was to help us
figure out which way the traffic was going.
Conspicuity was handled by the Rotating Beacon. As one who was actively
flying almost daily between Chicago and New York when rotating beacons became
common, I can assure you that we were all flabbergasted when we realized how
many airplanes were out there that we had not been seeing.
I like conspicuity lighting of all sorts, but I agree with those who feel we
still need running lights to determine direction of travel.
Many good efforts and ideas have been promulgated to avoid the glare of
running lights interfering with pilot vision. Rather than turn them off when in
cloud, I would install suitable glare prevention devices.
The difficulties we had with disorientation due to rotating beacons was
addressed by applying suitable shielding to those lights. I believe it is rare
for a current factory installed rotating beacon to cause a problem for the pilot
because most of them now have suitable shielding.
Obviously, it took a while to discover the problems so that they could be
addressed.
We still have difficulties with complaints about folks operating strobes on
the ground. Most experts assure us that a strobe last such a small length of
time that the flash cannot hurt our night vision, but you will still hear
complaints to the tower where someone is asking that a strobe light be turned
off.
Conspicuity lighting is still in development. The wig wag for landing lights
appears to be a pretty good current idea.
I believe the running lights are still needed to aid in that last split
second evaluation of which way to turn, yet I will admit that in some
thirty-eight thousand hours of flight time, I do not believe I have ever saved
the day
by making such a turn!
Nevertheless, I do believe I have initiated turns well ahead of a collision
situation by determining the projected flight path of a potentially
conflicting aircraft.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Excellent write up Old Bob!
Michael Sausen
Do not archive
-----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
In a message dated 12/7/2005 7:47:26 A.M. Central Standard Time, nuckollsr@cox.net
writes:
The first airplanes to fly at night carried only position lights. It didn't take
long for folks to realize that these little critters were insufficient for
giving other pilots a heads-up on approaching traffic and they starting sticking
beacons and strobes on the airplanes. The logic that position lights are
sacrosanct with respect to see-and-avoid after you've already been given 'permission'
to shut the big puppies off escapes me. But then, the logic behind
much of what the FAA does escapes me too.
Good Morning Bob,
As one who had logged several thousand hours in those days before conspicuity lighting
was formalized in the guise of rotating beacons and, later, strobe lights,
may I add a few things to your thoughts?
Most Douglas DC-3s came from the factory with a red passing light located in the
same wing cutout which contained the left landing light. When we saw another
airplane heading our way, we would flash the passing light. It helped us
all make sure we saw other traffic.
Shortly after WWII, the powers that be decided that running lights should alternate
with white conspicuity lights which were mounted above and below the airplane.
The running lights alternated with the white conspicuity lights. The idea was that
the flashing lights would add conspicuity, yet we would still have running
lights to guide us and help determine the proper avoidance technique to be used.
Most of us took to turning on every light we had when we were in high traffic
areas. That include the ice lights out on the sides. By the early fifties,
we were told to cease using our ice lights for that purpose because we were
confusing the directional perception that was needed to determine which way
to maneuver.
Capital airlines came up with the idea of mounting a police "Mars' light on the
top of a couple of their DC-4s. They tried both amber and red lenses. We all
found that the Capital idea helped a lot. Grimes came up with an FAA approved
version and rotating beacons were on the way. It was determined that the flashing
running lights interfered with our being able to determine direction of
travel.
Flashing, occulting or alternating running lights were declared illegal so that
we could best use them for their original purpose which was to help us figure
out which way the traffic was going.
Conspicuity was handled by the Rotating Beacon. As one who was actively flying
almost daily between Chicago and New York when rotating beacons became common,
I can assure you that we were all flabbergasted when we realized how many airplanes
were out there that we had not been seeing.
I like conspicuity lighting of all sorts, but I agree with those who feel we still
need running lights to determine direction of travel.
Many good efforts and ideas have been promulgated to avoid the glare of running
lights interfering with pilot vision. Rather than turn them off when in cloud,
I would install suitable glare prevention devices.
The difficulties we had with disorientation due to rotating beacons was addressed
by applying suitable shielding to those lights. I believe it is rare for a
current factory installed rotating beacon to cause a problem for the pilot because
most of them now have suitable shielding.
Obviously, it took a while to discover the problems so that they could be addressed.
We still have difficulties with complaints about folks operating strobes on the
ground. Most experts assure us that a strobe last such a small length of time
that the flash cannot hurt our night vision, but you will still hear complaints
to the tower where someone is asking that a strobe light be turned off.
Conspicuity lighting is still in development. The wig wag for landing lights appears
to be a pretty good current idea.
I believe the running lights are still needed to aid in that last split second
evaluation of which way to turn, yet I will admit that in some thirty-eight thousand
hours of flight time, I do not believe I have ever saved the day by making
such a turn!
Nevertheless, I do believe I have initiated turns well ahead of a collision situation
by determining the projected flight path of a potentially conflicting
aircraft.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:54 AM 12/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
Great historical data. Thanks!
>
>
>Good Morning Bob,
>As one who had logged several thousand hours in those days before
>conspicuity lighting was formalized in the guise of rotating beacons and,
>later, strobe
>lights, may I add a few things to your thoughts?
>
>Most Douglas DC-3s came from the factory with a red passing light located in
>the same wing cutout which contained the left landing light. When we saw
>another airplane heading our way, we would flash the passing light.
>It helped
>us all make sure we saw other traffic.
<snip>
>We still have difficulties with complaints about folks operating strobes on
>the ground. Most experts assure us that a strobe last such a small length of
>time that the flash cannot hurt our night vision, but you will still hear
>complaints to the tower where someone is asking that a strobe light be
>turned
>off.
Yeah, I'm not sure they're "harmful" so much as "irritating" . . . When
one drives along streets you're deluged with informative,
persuasive and perhaps entertaining input from signs and lights. Yet,
there are folks driving around in cars with red and blue lights on them
that expect you to pick up on every regulatory sign posted amongst the
noise. When sitting low to the ground in a little airplane trying to
navigate one's way on an unfamiliar airport, someone's "lookit me!!"
strobes are not helpful when I'm looking for data.
>Conspicuity lighting is still in development. The wig wag for landing lights
>appears to be a pretty good current idea.
Very much so. Had occasion to fly in Oregon where VFR is nearly
always marginal. Wig-wags really make the other guy stand out.
>I believe the running lights are still needed to aid in that last split
>second evaluation of which way to turn, yet I will admit that in some
>thirty-eight thousand hours of flight time, I do not believe I have ever
>saved the day
>by making such a turn!
Agree . . . in every close passing I've had with other airplanes,
most situations were such that it would have made no difference
if was running standard lighting protocols. One event would
most certainly have been mitigated by wig-wags . . . he came
at me out of the haze and passed blow with probably less than 100'
of separation. That was in controlled airspace talking to approach
who never mentioned the other airplane.
>Nevertheless, I do believe I have initiated turns well ahead of a collision
>situation by determining the projected flight path of a potentially
>conflicting aircraft.
So have I . . . all of which supposes that at least one of the
two of us is looking and sees. Funny thing about boring holes
in clouds. I don't perceive much value in looking out the windows
when there are really busy things to attend to inside. I'll
be other pilots are similarly disposed.
Should we come together in a cloud and the folks who make a living
sifting through the wreckage find that my position lights
were not ON, they'll no doubt make note of it . . . but I'll
bet it wouldn't have made a difference.
Bob . . .
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Bob R
How is the GNS430 hooked up to the GI106A? I believe that it is via analog
lines which means a bunch of wires. If the 300 has the same analog output,
it is possible to switch the 106 between the 430 and the 300 with a relay
of some kind. If you research the archives, there was a good discussion
about how to do this (roll your own) back about 2 years ago. I have a
picture of the prototype that Bob Nuckolls made, as well as a .pdf file of
the circuit board, relay, etc. It has a Dsub25 input and a Dsub37 output.
Let me know off line if you want copies of these files.
Bob Nuckolls: Do you still make these for sale?
Cheers,
John Schroeder
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:38:26 +0000, bob rundle <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no
> way
> to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?
--
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Mark -
Sure does. Thanks, John
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:54:12 -0600, Mark R Steitle
<mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
>
> John,
> It is really a very simple circuit. Go to
> www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/LM/LM7805.pdf and scroll down to fig. 8.
> That's how I wired my system. The input (+12v) goes to the fuse panel,
> the output goes to the capacitive probe circuit input (+5v), and the
> other lead goes to ground. And finally, the output from the capacitive
> probes goes to the high-frequency input channel on the EFIS/1. The EI
> probe circuit also has a ground lead, yours probably does too. Hope
> this helps.
>
> Mark S.
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: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Bob,
Probably true, but I believe part of the discussion we are having hinges on
why the pitot heat has been turned on. I use pitot heat any time I am flying
in visible precipitation or moisture of any kind.
Why do I do that?
The airline I worked for started to recommend that we do so in the middle
fifties. They did it in the hope that we would have fewer problems with water
in the pitot system. It was found that it did help and the practice was made
standard. As is true of so many things I do, I do what I have been told until
I find good data that directs me to make a change. That policy continued as
long as we flew the piston airplanes.
Every jet transport I ever flew had the pitot heat on full time. Many of
them were wired so that a low heat range was applied while on the ground which
automatically switched to a higher heat on lift off.
Since I have very little experience flying in cloud or any other
precipitation for the last fifty years without pitot heat turned on in any airplane
so
equipped, I suppose it can be said I really do not know what I am talking
about!
Nevertheless, I do use pitot heat and running lights often and in places
where I really think both are serving a useful purpose!
I will also offer in defense of those who do not use pitot heat:
Losing the airspeed is not a big deal for any competent instrument pilot.
It can be if he/she makes it a problem, but it need not be so. I have often
lost my airspeed indications when flying TriPacers. The non heated factory
probe seems to ice up at the very first hint of any ice. My first three
Bonanzas had what Beech was calling, at that time, an "icing resistant" pitot
tube.
It had no heater installed, but there was a small dam right behind the air
entry.
How it did what it did I have no idea, but that non heated tube would not
ice up until there was considerable ice, maybe an inch or more, built up on the
wing.
By the sixties, very few Bonanzas could be found which were not equipped
with a heated pitot tube.
As usual, I have wandered from the subject at hand, but it is fun to think
about those early days!
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
In a message dated 12/7/2005 10:06:12 A.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
Should we come together in a cloud and the folks who make a living
sifting through the wreckage find that my position lights
were not ON, they'll no doubt make note of it . . . but I'll
bet it wouldn't have made a difference.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:26 AM 12/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
><jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
>Bob R
>
>How is the GNS430 hooked up to the GI106A? I believe that it is via analog
>lines which means a bunch of wires. If the 300 has the same analog output,
>it is possible to switch the 106 between the 430 and the 300 with a relay
>of some kind. If you research the archives, there was a good discussion
>about how to do this (roll your own) back about 2 years ago. I have a
>picture of the prototype that Bob Nuckolls made, as well as a .pdf file of
>the circuit board, relay, etc. It has a Dsub25 input and a Dsub37 output.
>
>Let me know off line if you want copies of these files.
>
>Bob Nuckolls: Do you still make these for sale?
Never did. I considered it but I belive Eric Jones jumped in
to do it. I decided not to compete on a low-volume product.
Bob . . .
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> ... I will admit that in some
> thirty-eight thousand hours of flight time, ...
Wow, Mr. Siegfried, that's amazing. I don't think I've
ever heard of anyone with that many hours. I'm awestruck!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/7/2005 11:41:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mick-matronics@rv8.ch writes:
Wow, Mr. Siegfried, that's amazing. I don't think I've
ever heard of anyone with that many hours. I'm awestruck!
Good Morning Mickey,
It's not hard to do, you just have to live a long time!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator (true lies and exaggeration's) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
First I never said 60 amps is not enough. Who cares what B&C sales.
I agree 60 amps should be enough, but folks are putting in more and more crap
into the planes not needed (like heated pitots in VFR planes). BTW my pet peeve
is 8 amp pitot's on a VFR plane, which I can't understand. (Note: If the air
temp is not at freezing or less and you are NOT in VISABLE moisture you will
not get icing. Period, end of story. What is a VFR pilot doing in a cloud. Also
IFR in freezing conditions in a RV is illegal, but at least you could justify
pitot heat more if you do plan on IMC. Stay out of clouds you will NOT get
airframe ice. (Please no freezing rain, drizzle stories, it is visible moisture
below freezing, and freezing precipitation is NOT a place for a VFR pilot).
Stop the madness, no heated pitot on VFR planes.
Just for the record I basically have a day / night IFR RV-7 and a 40 AMP alternator
(aka 45 amp at engine RPM's over 2000 rpm). My total (MAX) draw is 32
amps, transient and continuous, which is not a real typical condition. My realistic
max is about 26.5 amps, but typical day / night cruise draw, is 9.25 / 21.5
amps.
So the wise remarks about 60amps......
As far as lights, my exterior lights total 21 amps:
Landing lights 4 amps x 2,
Aeroflash (double flash) strobe pak, each wing, 3 amps x 2,
Tail strobe pak is 2 amps.
Each wing Nav 2 amps x 2,
Tail Nav 1 amp
That adds up to 21 amps! Add a 8 amp pitot and the 20 amp panel that was proposed
you have 49 amps. That could tax a 60 amp alternator. How you get a 21 amp
panel I don't know but assumed for the sake of argument you can.
BTW I also have over 10,000 hours, with 4 pitot heats and one TAT probe heat
on, strobes and nav on (even in the day time) and landing lights on below 10,000
feet. :-)
George
---------------------------------
Let fate take it's course directly to your email.
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
Runaway alternators boy they can be fickle!!
Small or large current units if in full runaway can exceed 75, maybe 100
volts and cause complete panel failure chaos. The damage can be total to
wiring, electric units and avionics, plus throw in the fire, smoke and
sparks blasting every where problem.
Best prevention is to use a really good, heavy duty regulator that can 100%
shut down the field instantly if something causes it to go into a high
voltage mode.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> There's also the extra weight including heavier wiring.
>
> Then there is the issue of overvoltage. A battery can handle a small
> runaway alternator much longer which may save some expensive
> electronics. Perhaps irrelevant with an OVP equipped external voltage
> regulated alternator. However it might be a factor with an internal
> regulated unit. At the time these were the reasons that I tossed a new
> 100 amp subaru unit and replaced it with a new 40 amp unit. Saved at
> least 6 lbs.
>
> Load dump excursions should also be less severe I think since the
> alternator won't put out enough current to handle high inrushes or
> intermittant or momentary high load demands. Transorbs could handle most
> of that I suppose. Of course with the small alternator I was comfortable
> with a small battery which saved even more weight but probably offset
> some of what I just said about voltage excursions...
>
> However I personally don't like large alternators coupled to small
> batteries.
>
> Ken
>
> RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>><rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>>
>> Did I miss something here? What's the big deal with oversizing your
>> alternator a bit? Other than more money, more cooling requirements, and
>> a fraction of a HP less I don't see what the big deal is. I'm all for
>> putting in only what's required but where is the big negative of putting
>> in a 60amp compared to a 40amp that warrants this much conversation?
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
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: very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:54 AM 12/7/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
>
>This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
>fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
>connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
>or from the front.
>
>
>I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
>little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
>crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
Your narrative doesn't offer much of an image as to
an answer to your question. What AMP part number is it?
Did you buy it new? Have you checked the AMP website
for instructions?
Do you have a digital camera? Can you send me close-ups
of both sides of the tool? Send to nuckollsr@cox.net
Before you take the pictures, take a look at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
This comic book describes every crimp tool's task for
achieving acceptable results. With the jaws fully closed,
looking into the terminal cavity, if one side is larger than
the other (with AMP this is LIKELY), then the larger side is
where the WIRE goes in.
For example: See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/CLEVELAND60A.jpg
These die openings are larger than . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/CLEVELAND61A.jpg
Bob . . .
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: | Spare Fuses vs. Fumble Factor - and Crossbow NAV425 |
AHRS failures...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Campbell <gregcampbellusa@gmail.com>
I have a glass panel in my Lancair ES. It's wired with dual electric buses and
an E-Bus.
The Sierra Sport EFIS gets attitude & heading data from a Crossbow NAV425 "AHRS"
system.
www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid104
My original design figured the AHRS was about as essential as you could get,
so it was fused directly (with no switch) to the E-Bus.
Since the E-Bus was powered automatically from Bus1 or Bus2,
I figured this was a safe, reasonable, trouble-free & very simple solution.
With a MTBF estimated in the tens of thousands of hours,
I naively though my AHRS installation was complete.
During Phase 1 testing, my Crossbow NAV425 starting having erratic startups
which would require a reset of the AHRS on the ground, and later in-flight.
The MTBF's for my unit were working out more in the tens of hours, not thousands
of hours.
So... Mod #1 was to put in an ON-(OFF) "momentary reset" switch so I could briefly
power the AHRS off and force it to reset if it developed a goofy attitude on the
ground or in-flight.
It got a pretty regular workout - and the AHRS continued to get flakier and flakier
over the summer.
Mod #2 By August, it got to the point where the AHRS would rarely reset to a usable
condition.
I decided to change the momentary ON-(OFF) to a permanent (and less distracting)
ON-OFF switch.
(The AHRS didn't know it was sending bad data, so the EFIS kept showing bad data,
unusual attitudes, etc..
This is my electrical equivalent of putting a Post-It note over a faulty $25K Attitude
Indicator.)
With power removed from the AHRS, the EFIS dutifully reports the loss of AHRS data
and operates in a
degraded, but far less distracting mode with the attitude information removed.
Prior to this, after using
the momentary (OFF) AHRS reset switch, the bad attitude data would go away for
a minute
until the AHRS came back online with more faulty and distracting data.
Mod #3 Recently I decided to go one step further. Since I had already dedicated
panel space
to the AHRS power switch, aka "Reset" feature, I decided to give myself a "built-in"
backup power source.
By using a readily available SPDT ON-OFF-ON switch (you could also do it with
a progressive transfer switch),
I was able to feed the AHRS from either of two separate fuses:
+ the "normal" fuse is on the E-Bus, which is automatically fed from Bus 1 or Bus
2.
+ the "backup fuse" could be on Bus#1 (to avoid the diode drop of the E-Bus), or
Bus 2, or the Battery Bus.
By putting the "normal" position at one end of the toggle switch throw, I'm able
to use a guarded switch
with a cover that can be safetied in the closed position. So when Crossbow finally
gets the NAV425 working correctly
( see: www.xbow.com/Support/Support_pdf_files/Service_Letter_NAV425.pdf )
I can wire the guard shut using soft copper safety wire. Until then, the guard
remains open - and the "OFF" position gets used frequently.
Previously I had considered that I could swap a blown fuse in-flight. But I believe
I underestimated
the "fumble factor" involved in doing so. Earlier this year I had the opportunity
to swap the landing gear indicator bulbs
on my twin. After extending the gear on downwind - the nose gear indicator failed
to light up. The POH says to swap the bulbs.
I got the (bad?) nose bulb out and then took out one of the "good bulbs" and promptly
dropped it.
(Did I mention that it was single pilot, no Autopilot, snowing, cold, and getting
dark around sunset - in the snowy mountains near Tonopah NV ? ;-)
I finally got the remaining "good" bulb out and swapped it - and sure enough -
landed with one green light - (the nose).
After that little adventure - I decided that fumbling around for spare fuses was
more fun than I wanted to consider.
So if you already have a power switch - you could always change it into a SPDT
power switch with a "Spare fuse" built in.
It will give you that "second shot" that the circuit breaker guys have - without
having to fumble around for fuses.
Mod #4 Having two power sources available, it now begged the question of whether
I really wanted the AHRS to reset
if the power is momentarily interrupted. There are more reasons why I wouldn't
want this to happen - so I began
thinking about "make before break" and override, switches, etc.. But that introduces
complexities - and I finally decided to simply
try a capacitor on the AHRS power line. A 1000 or 2000 microfarad capacitor from
Radio Shack allows the AHRS
(which draws less than 350 mA) to reliably "ride through" a brief interruption
of power.
+ So if you want the AHRS to run on the backup fuse and bus, then quickly switch
from Normal ON to Backup ON
and the AHRS never misses a beat and doesn't initiate an awkward and unpredictable
in-flight reset of the AHRS.
+ If you simply want to reset the AHRS, then turn it OFF, count to 10, then turn
it back ON. The capacitor will bleed down
and the AHRS will power OFF and reset when power is restored. You have to hold
the plane fairly straight & level while this happens.
So hopefully you have the autopilot available, or backup instruments. (All the
more reason NOT to use the GPS signal from the NAV425's built in GPS as a primary
GPS signal, since the TruTrak AP is aided by a GPS input signal.)
+ If you just want the AHRS data to go away and stay away - then leave the power
switch in the OFF position.
Anyway - this little AHRS aggravation caused me to put way more thought into this
lowly little circuit
than I ever imagined at the beginning of the project. But I like the ever evolving
solution that
it has spawned. Physically - it only added one switch to the panel. That switch
is located
away from the "everyday" switches. It only needs to be touched if things go awry.
(It also exposed some weaknesses in the design assumption of the EFIS - namely
that the EFIS shouldn't
rely on the subsystems (like the AHRS, EIS, etc.) to reliably report when they
are generating bad data.
Until it can - it's important to be able to pull the plug on sub-systems sending
bad data so you aren't distracted
(It also pointed out that you don't want to rely on the GPS built into the NAV425
- because if you pull
the plug on the AHRS, you would also lose your GPS source as well. Adding a basic
GPS sensor like the
Garmin 18-5Hz is an excellent backup GPS signal - for under $200.)
My friends in the airline industry tell me that if a circuit breaker pops on a
non-essential item,
than they don't even reset it once in-flight. If it's for an essential piece of
equipment, they can try and
reset it once. If it pops again - then it's considered Tango Uniform (Inop) for
the remainder of the flight.
So this switch & fuse & capacitor arrangement gives you "two shots" just like a
circuit breaker, plus the option
of resetting the device, or letting it stay up, or permanently powering it off.
(With my faulty AHRS,
the bad data just kept coming back - which was very distracting.)
So while it may be stating the obvious - don't underestimate the usefulness of
having a spare fuse
already wired into your more critical circuits. It can aid in load shedding, load
balancing, and avoiding
the dreaded fumble factor when it's miserable & getting dark! You're already carrying
the spare fuse (hopefully),
so it only adds the weight of a second piece of wire and a bigger fuse panel.
All in all - I'm very glad I went with fuses.
The only two circuit breakers in my plane are for the voltage regulators.
(And it only took me two tries to get those right! But that's another story...
;-)
Greg
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roberto Honorato" <roberto.honorato@williamaeronautica.com.br>
Bob Wrote:
"Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no way
to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?"
Yes, you can connect! I have a diagram using 300xl, GI106A and MD-41.
You can use MD-41 or a buildhome switch box, for experimental uses.
I can send you if you want.
Att,
Robert
--
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: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Campbell <gregcampbellusa@gmail.com>
My personal theory of the 32v rating for the ATO/ATC blade fuses
is that it's based more on the maximum voltage you would feel comfortable
grabbing with bare fingers!
The fuses are designed with exposed metal test points - so you can easily use
a fuse tester by probing the exposed metal contacts. These metal test points
are on the top surface of the fuse, and would easily be contacted by bare fingers
trying to insert or replace a fuse in the panel.
Just looking at the internal configuration of the fuses, I speculate that they
would reliably
interrupt 100 or even 300 volts. I don't believe the arcing distance is a factor
at all.
Rather, I think it's a personnel issue. Who would you get to change a fuse
in a 100v or 300v system without benefit of some additional insulation or special
tools?
I've been known to fearlessly put a finger into a 12v lighter socket and feign
getting a shock.
(Usually to the utter and very real annoyance of my wife.)
But I think I'd be hesitant about poking around with bare hands in a system much
above 50vdc.
(Thomas Edison thought DC to be much safer, wanting to call AC electrocution being
"Westinghoused".)
I could ask my friend who was working with phone wires once.
He abruptly discovered that the nominal 48vdc phone signal is replaced by
a 90vac "ring signal" when the phone company wants to ring your bell.
As I recall - he was stripping wires with his teeth at the time, and the tender
skin of his
inner forearm was resting securely on a cast iron sewer pipe. Of course, I think
his head hurt the worst
after the phone rang - he jerked it up and banged it on a floor joist. I think
his personal
voltage threshold probably around 32v ;-) I was too busy laughing to remember
all the details.
But 32vdc sounds like a pretty good "bare fingers" compromise voltage.
If your hands are sweaty, you probably shouldn't be in the fuse box anyway.
Greg
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 03:01 PM 12/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Campbell
><gregcampbellusa@gmail.com>
>
>My personal theory of the 32v rating for the ATO/ATC blade fuses
>is that it's based more on the maximum voltage you would feel comfortable
>grabbing with bare fingers!
>
>The fuses are designed with exposed metal test points - so you can easily use
>a fuse tester by probing the exposed metal contacts. These metal test points
>are on the top surface of the fuse, and would easily be contacted by bare
>fingers
>trying to insert or replace a fuse in the panel.
>
>Just looking at the internal configuration of the fuses, I speculate that
>they would reliably
>interrupt 100 or even 300 volts. I don't believe the arcing distance is a
>factor at all.
>
>Rather, I think it's a personnel issue. Who would you get to change a fuse
>in a 100v or 300v system without benefit of some additional insulation or
>special tools?
>
>I've been known to fearlessly put a finger into a 12v lighter socket and
>feign getting a shock.
>(Usually to the utter and very real annoyance of my wife.)
>But I think I'd be hesitant about poking around with bare hands in a
>system much above 50vdc.
>(Thomas Edison thought DC to be much safer, wanting to call AC
>electrocution being "Westinghoused".)
>
>I could ask my friend who was working with phone wires once.
>He abruptly discovered that the nominal 48vdc phone signal is replaced by
>a 90vac "ring signal" when the phone company wants to ring your bell.
>As I recall - he was stripping wires with his teeth at the time, and the
>tender skin of his
>inner forearm was resting securely on a cast iron sewer pipe. Of course,
>I think his head hurt the worst
>after the phone rang - he jerked it up and banged it on a floor joist. I
>think his personal
>voltage threshold probably around 32v ;-) I was too busy laughing to
>remember all the details.
>
>But 32vdc sounds like a pretty good "bare fingers" compromise voltage.
>If your hands are sweaty, you probably shouldn't be in the fuse box anyway.
Actually, there is a specific thought process behind the
32v rating on these fuses. Take a peek at:
http://www.bussmann.com/library/bifs/2009.PDF
The data sheet for the ATC plastic fuse states that it's
rated for 32 volts or less on a bus capable of delivering
up to 1000A of fault current.
This means the mechanical clearances and melting
characteristics are designed to clear a fault having
an instantaneous power potential of up to 32,000 watts.
That's a LOT of heat dumped into the widening gap
at melt-through. The design has to demonstrate an
ability to reliably open this kind of circuit while
containing all ugly stuff within the fuse's enclosure.
The purpose of such circuit protection is to stand
off the effects of some predictable hazard. A mis-applied
protection device can BECOME a hazard.
Obviously, very few users will have a reason ever to
approach these levels. It's not a directly linear
function but intuitively, if max fault current were limited
to say 100A, then one could bet on adequate performance
at a higher voltage . . . not 320 but something certainly
higher than 32 volts.
32 volts is a handy upper end to design to. When
the electrical industry was young, 32 volts was the voltage
of choice for wind charger systems on farms, dc lighting
systems on boats, lighting systems in railroad cars,
etc. You can browse some of historical applications
of 32v at these websites and others.
http://www.trainweb.org/gyra/electric.htm
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1970_November_December/Power_
http://www.pilothouseonline.com/hatteras72fcm.htm
http://cap.estevan.sk.ca/community/history/celebration/chapter18.html
32V was probably selected as the highest voltage one could
reliably open with switches, breakers and fuses of the time.
I'm hearing some rumblings about the proposed 42v systems for
automobiles. Seems there are some bigger hurdles to jump with
respect to switching and arc prevention issues than originally
anticipated.
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:33 AM 12/7/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
>
>Runaway alternators boy they can be fickle!!
>Small or large current units if in full runaway can exceed 75, maybe 100
>volts and cause complete panel failure chaos. The damage can be total to
>wiring, electric units and avionics, plus throw in the fire, smoke and
>sparks blasting every where problem.
A functional battery will readily place itself between
your runaway alternator and any fragile electrics. A 60A
machine in runaway pushing say 70A into a 17 a.h. battery will
be forced to a limited rate of rise and held well under
20v long enough for ov protection to sense and react.
I'm hoping to do some tests at up to 125A on some
17 a.h. batteries in the not too distant future.
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Cool!...We'll wait for the stories of the explosions! ...:)
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:33 AM 12/7/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd"
>--> <skywagon@charter.net>
>
>Runaway alternators boy they can be fickle!!
>Small or large current units if in full runaway can exceed 75, maybe
>100 volts and cause complete panel failure chaos. The damage can be
>total to wiring, electric units and avionics, plus throw in the fire,
>smoke and sparks blasting every where problem.
A functional battery will readily place itself between
your runaway alternator and any fragile electrics. A 60A
machine in runaway pushing say 70A into a 17 a.h. battery will
be forced to a limited rate of rise and held well under
20v long enough for ov protection to sense and react.
I'm hoping to do some tests at up to 125A on some
17 a.h. batteries in the not too distant future.
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: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Mickey - similarly amazing was the gentleman who checked me out for an
altiport rating at Meribel in France. After he had signed me off, I
commented that I thought his landings were better than mine. His comment was
along the lines "...when you also have 100,000 landings yours will be as
good as mine. " Its unbelievable, but he had them.
Steve.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>> ... I will admit that in some
>> thirty-eight thousand hours of flight time, ...
>
> Wow, Mr. Siegfried, that's amazing. I don't think I've
> ever heard of anyone with that many hours. I'm awestruck!
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> do not archive
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: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
I believe that the permanent magnet alternators like my John Deere always
present the same mechanical load no mater what the electrical load is. I do
know that with the alternator lying on my desk it is hard to turn and will
not free-wheel.
-- 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 10:18 AM 12/7/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
><mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> > 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.
>
>Just a (probably dumb) side question but does the load on the engine
>vary with the load on the alternator?
>
>In other words, assuming 80% alternator efficiency, will a 60 amp 14.5v
>load require 1 hp from the engine, and a 30 amp load require 0.5 hp?
The mechanical load is proportional to the electrical
load. 1 hp = 746 watts. 60A * 14.5v = 870 watts or
1.15 hp out. Divide by 0.8 for efficiency and we get
1.46 hp input. 30A load on the same setup would require
0.73 hp input from the engine.
Bob . . .
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: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
As to load-dump spikes Eric Jones (who graces this list with his presence)
sells this as Perihelion Design:
http://periheliondesign.com/suppressors/Whackjack%20Manual.pdf
I have one and can assure you that while it has been lying on my desk no
vampires have attacked me.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
There's also the extra weight including heavier wiring.
Then there is the issue of overvoltage. A battery can handle a small runaway
alternator much longer which may save some expensive electronics. Perhaps
irrelevant with an OVP equipped external voltage regulated alternator.
However it might be a factor with an internal regulated unit. At the time
these were the reasons that I tossed a new 100 amp subaru unit and replaced
it with a new 40 amp unit. Saved at least 6 lbs.
Load dump excursions should also be less severe I think since the alternator
won't put out enough current to handle high inrushes or intermittant or
momentary high load demands. Transorbs could handle most of that I suppose.
Of course with the small alternator I was comfortable with a small battery
which saved even more weight but probably offset some of what I just said
about voltage excursions...
However I personally don't like large alternators coupled to small
batteries.
Ken
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>--> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> Did I miss something here? What's the big deal with oversizing your
alternator a bit? Other than more money, more cooling requirements, and a
fraction of a HP less I don't see what the big deal is. I'm all for putting
in only what's required but where is the big negative of putting in a 60amp
compared to a 40amp that warrants this much conversation?
>
>
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: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Somebody (but I can't remember who) built a thermostatic proportionally
controlled pitot heater. It drew a lot less than the ones that are either
off or full on. In order for this to help total current consumption you need
to modulate the duty-cycle of the power to the heater. Using a simple linear
regulator just moves the wasted energy from the pitot to the regulator.
-- 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 Morning Bob,
Probably true, but I believe part of the discussion we are having hinges on
why the pitot heat has been turned on. I use pitot heat any time I am flying
in visible precipitation or moisture of any kind.
Why do I do that?
The airline I worked for started to recommend that we do so in the middle
fifties. They did it in the hope that we would have fewer problems with
water in the pitot system. It was found that it did help and the practice
was made standard. As is true of so many things I do, I do what I have
been told until I find good data that directs me to make a change. That
policy continued as long as we flew the piston airplanes.
Every jet transport I ever flew had the pitot heat on full time. Many of
them were wired so that a low heat range was applied while on the ground
which automatically switched to a higher heat on lift off.
Since I have very little experience flying in cloud or any other
precipitation for the last fifty years without pitot heat turned on in any
airplane so equipped, I suppose it can be said I really do not know what I
am talking about!
Nevertheless, I do use pitot heat and running lights often and in places
where I really think both are serving a useful purpose!
I will also offer in defense of those who do not use pitot heat:
Losing the airspeed is not a big deal for any competent instrument pilot.
It can be if he/she makes it a problem, but it need not be so. I have often
lost my airspeed indications when flying TriPacers. The non heated factory
probe seems to ice up at the very first hint of any ice. My first three
Bonanzas had what Beech was calling, at that time, an "icing resistant"
pitot tube.
It had no heater installed, but there was a small dam right behind the air
entry.
How it did what it did I have no idea, but that non heated tube would not
ice up until there was considerable ice, maybe an inch or more, built up on
the wing.
By the sixties, very few Bonanzas could be found which were not equipped
with a heated pitot tube.
As usual, I have wandered from the subject at hand, but it is fun to think
about those early days!
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
In a message dated 12/7/2005 10:06:12 A.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
Should we come together in a cloud and the folks who make a living sifting
through the wreckage find that my position lights were not ON, they'll no
doubt make note of it . . . but I'll bet it wouldn't have made a
difference.
Bob . . .
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Right here:
http://periheliondesign.com/18polerelays.htm
-- 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: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:26 AM 12/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
><jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
>Bob R
>
>How is the GNS430 hooked up to the GI106A? I believe that it is via
>analog lines which means a bunch of wires. If the 300 has the same
>analog output, it is possible to switch the 106 between the 430 and the
>300 with a relay of some kind. If you research the archives, there was
>a good discussion about how to do this (roll your own) back about 2
>years ago. I have a picture of the prototype that Bob Nuckolls made, as
>well as a .pdf file of the circuit board, relay, etc. It has a Dsub25 input
and a Dsub37 output.
>
>Let me know off line if you want copies of these files.
>
>Bob Nuckolls: Do you still make these for sale?
Never did. I considered it but I belive Eric Jones jumped in
to do it. I decided not to compete on a low-volume product.
Bob . . .
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: Battery OV event testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:00 PM 12/7/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Cool!...We'll wait for the stories of the explosions! ...:)
>
>Frank
>
>Do not archive
Currents that high for tens of milliseconds isn't really
a big deal. But stretch it out into minutes and things
start coming apart. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV_4.jpg
This is the Odyssey battery that took the hit on the failed
ND alternator we spoke about last week. It's going to be
' interesting to see how it came apart inside. The way the
whole side is puffed out, it looks like the cell separators
detached from the side wall.
I think this happens because the magic battery stuff inside
swells . . . these batteries are vented at about 1.5 to 3
psi and I doubt they would suffer this level of disassembly
just from overpressure.
The SVLA/RG battery is a rather benign inhabitant. The
Navy's battery labs at Crane, IN have abused these critters
in all manner of ugly way and they don't blow up, spew
steaming acid, or catch fire.
I've carbon-copied my ol' buddy at Concord on this note.
Perhaps he'll have some insights to share with us.
Bob . . .
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: PM alternator requlators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:13 PM 12/7/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>I believe that the permanent magnet alternators like my John Deere always
>present the same mechanical load no mater what the electrical load is. I do
>know that with the alternator lying on my desk it is hard to turn and will
>not free-wheel.
The earliest regulators for PM alternators were the "shunt"
variety that simply loaded the alternator hard enough to keep
the bus voltage constant. Yes, these are constant load
systems where things can run pretty hot.
For the past 25 years or more, folks are using series pass
regulators that load the alternator only as electrical system
demands dictate. Much cooler and more efficient.
Bob . . .
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter" <willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening
to the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end
of the terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good
luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert
the connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from
behind or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
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: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
Bill,
That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
await his input as well. With appreciation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Slaughter
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter"
<willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening
to the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end
of the terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good
luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert
the connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from
behind or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
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: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Phil, newbie to newbie, I just had the same experience and noted that if you
put the wire-in side of the terminal next to the side of the die with the
dot on it, it will do much better. The opposite orientation would easily
pull out. The ring side or fast-on side should be on the side without the
dot. At least, it makes a difference in mine.
Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
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: very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
Robert, I'm sure this has been asked several times...but what crimp tool do you
recommend?
Dan
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 10:54 AM 12/7/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper"
>
>This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
>fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
>connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
>or from the front.
>
>
>I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
>little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
>crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
Your narrative doesn't offer much of an image as to
an answer to your question. What AMP part number is it?
Did you buy it new? Have you checked the AMP website
for instructions?
Do you have a digital camera? Can you send me close-ups
of both sides of the tool? Send to nuckollsr@cox.net
Before you take the pictures, take a look at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
This comic book describes every crimp tool's task for
achieving acceptable results. With the jaws fully closed,
looking into the terminal cavity, if one side is larger than
the other (with AMP this is LIKELY), then the larger side is
where the WIRE goes in.
For example: See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/CLEVELAND60A.jpg
These die openings are larger than . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/CLEVELAND61A.jpg
Bob . . .
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: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
the AMP crimper is about $600.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
Bill,
That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
await his input as well. With appreciation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Slaughter
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter"
<willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening to
the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end of the
terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
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: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Yep, Warren Gretz is now selling his GA-1000 pitot that has a thermostat and supposedly
kicks in and maintains the pitot at a cozy temp (I think it brings it
to 100F and then cycles off if I remember correctly) when it sense the temp is
getting near freezing. I have one and it is very nice but I can't attest to
the functionality for a while yet. Also Eric has built his own based on the
same principals.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352
Do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Craig Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Somebody (but I can't remember who) built a thermostatic proportionally
controlled pitot heater. It drew a lot less than the ones that are either
off or full on. In order for this to help total current consumption you need
to modulate the duty-cycle of the power to the heater. Using a simple linear
regulator just moves the wasted energy from the pitot to the regulator.
-- 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 Morning Bob,
Probably true, but I believe part of the discussion we are having hinges on
why the pitot heat has been turned on. I use pitot heat any time I am flying
in visible precipitation or moisture of any kind.
Why do I do that?
The airline I worked for started to recommend that we do so in the middle
fifties. They did it in the hope that we would have fewer problems with
water in the pitot system. It was found that it did help and the practice
was made standard. As is true of so many things I do, I do what I have
been told until I find good data that directs me to make a change. That
policy continued as long as we flew the piston airplanes.
Every jet transport I ever flew had the pitot heat on full time. Many of
them were wired so that a low heat range was applied while on the ground
which automatically switched to a higher heat on lift off.
Since I have very little experience flying in cloud or any other
precipitation for the last fifty years without pitot heat turned on in any
airplane so equipped, I suppose it can be said I really do not know what I
am talking about!
Nevertheless, I do use pitot heat and running lights often and in places
where I really think both are serving a useful purpose!
I will also offer in defense of those who do not use pitot heat:
Losing the airspeed is not a big deal for any competent instrument pilot.
It can be if he/she makes it a problem, but it need not be so. I have often
lost my airspeed indications when flying TriPacers. The non heated factory
probe seems to ice up at the very first hint of any ice. My first three
Bonanzas had what Beech was calling, at that time, an "icing resistant"
pitot tube.
It had no heater installed, but there was a small dam right behind the air
entry.
How it did what it did I have no idea, but that non heated tube would not
ice up until there was considerable ice, maybe an inch or more, built up on
the wing.
By the sixties, very few Bonanzas could be found which were not equipped
with a heated pitot tube.
As usual, I have wandered from the subject at hand, but it is fun to think
about those early days!
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
In a message dated 12/7/2005 10:06:12 A.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
Should we come together in a cloud and the folks who make a living sifting
through the wreckage find that my position lights were not ON, they'll no
doubt make note of it . . . but I'll bet it wouldn't have made a
difference.
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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
I think what I was thinking of was Dynon's (non-shipping) pitot/AOA:
http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/heatedpitotupdate.html
$485 for the GA-1000! I'm glad I can only fly day VFR ala Sport Pilot.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
Builder (Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
--> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Yep, Warren Gretz is now selling his GA-1000 pitot that has a thermostat and
supposedly kicks in and maintains the pitot at a cozy temp (I think it
brings it to 100F and then cycles off if I remember correctly) when it sense
the temp is getting near freezing. I have one and it is very nice but I
can't attest to the functionality for a while yet. Also Eric has built his
own based on the same principals.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352
Do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Craig Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
--> <craig@craigandjean.com>
Somebody (but I can't remember who) built a thermostatic proportionally
controlled pitot heater. It drew a lot less than the ones that are either
off or full on. In order for this to help total current consumption you need
to modulate the duty-cycle of the power to the heater. Using a simple linear
regulator just moves the wasted energy from the pitot to the regulator.
-- 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 Morning Bob,
Probably true, but I believe part of the discussion we are having hinges on
why the pitot heat has been turned on. I use pitot heat any time I am flying
in visible precipitation or moisture of any kind.
Why do I do that?
The airline I worked for started to recommend that we do so in the middle
fifties. They did it in the hope that we would have fewer problems with
water in the pitot system. It was found that it did help and the practice
was made standard. As is true of so many things I do, I do what I have
been told until I find good data that directs me to make a change. That
policy continued as long as we flew the piston airplanes.
Every jet transport I ever flew had the pitot heat on full time. Many of
them were wired so that a low heat range was applied while on the ground
which automatically switched to a higher heat on lift off.
Since I have very little experience flying in cloud or any other
precipitation for the last fifty years without pitot heat turned on in any
airplane so equipped, I suppose it can be said I really do not know what I
am talking about!
Nevertheless, I do use pitot heat and running lights often and in places
where I really think both are serving a useful purpose!
I will also offer in defense of those who do not use pitot heat:
Losing the airspeed is not a big deal for any competent instrument pilot.
It can be if he/she makes it a problem, but it need not be so. I have often
lost my airspeed indications when flying TriPacers. The non heated factory
probe seems to ice up at the very first hint of any ice. My first three
Bonanzas had what Beech was calling, at that time, an "icing resistant"
pitot tube.
It had no heater installed, but there was a small dam right behind the air
entry.
How it did what it did I have no idea, but that non heated tube would not
ice up until there was considerable ice, maybe an inch or more, built up on
the wing.
By the sixties, very few Bonanzas could be found which were not equipped
with a heated pitot tube.
As usual, I have wandered from the subject at hand, but it is fun to think
about those early days!
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
In a message dated 12/7/2005 10:06:12 A.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
Should we come together in a cloud and the folks who make a living sifting
through the wreckage find that my position lights were not ON, they'll no
doubt make note of it . . . but I'll bet it wouldn't have made a
difference.
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: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter" <willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
I bought mine (Pro-Crimp III)from Digi-Key in a kit with a box and some
terminals for just over $100 dollars. AMP makes a lot of different
crimpers, and the larger production rated ones do cost hundreds or even
thousands of dollars.
-----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: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
--> <craig@craigandjean.com>
Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the
link below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells
for about $40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the
current cost of the AMP crimper is about $600.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
Bill,
That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why
I have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've
always kept the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that
would be the "insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the
master and I await his input as well. With appreciation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
William Slaughter
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter"
<willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening
to the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end
of the terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good
luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert
the connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from
behind or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Mike,
Somewhere in the far reaches of my feeble gray matter, I seem to recall
something about a requirement that the pitot heater be hot enough to assure that
the water is taken above the boiling point almost immediately. It's kinda like
hot wings. If they aren't hot enough to evaporate the moisture, it just
warms it up enough to get run back!
Am I way off base in that memory?
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 12/7/2005 7:55:53 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rvbuilder@sausen.net writes:
Yep, Warren Gretz is now selling his GA-1000 pitot that has a thermostat and
supposedly kicks in and maintains the pitot at a cozy temp (I think it
brings it to 100F and then cycles off if I remember correctly) when it sense the
temp is getting near freezing. I have one and it is very nice but I can't
attest to the functionality for a while yet. Also Eric has built his own based
on the same principals
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: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
I bought mine from B&C and have been extremely pleased with it, compared to
any others I've used.
Dave Morris
At 07:47 PM 12/7/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
>below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
>$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
>the AMP crimper is about $600.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
>Hooper
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
>
>Bill,
>
>That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
>have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
>the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
>"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
>await his input as well. With appreciation.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
>Slaughter
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter"
><willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
>
>Phil,
>For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening to
>the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end of the
>terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
>I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good luck.
>
>William Slaughter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
>Hooper
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
>
>This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
>fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
>connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
>or from the front.
>
>
>I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
>little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
>crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
>
>
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: Question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:25 PM 12/7/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
>
>Bill,
>
>That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
>have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
>the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
>"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
>await his input as well. With appreciation.
Phil, I've posted your photos so that others can see what we're
talking about:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_2.jpg
Here Phil shows a properly oriented terminal in the tool. The "diamond"
dies are for the wire grip . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_3.jpg
This one is pretty easy. Note the diamond shape on one side of the dia
and the smaller cross-section, rectangular shape on the other. This
tool is intended for the pre-insulated, diamond-grip (PIDG) terminals and
probably produces adequate crimps on the Plastigrip hardware store
terminals too.
Here's another tool that shares characteristics with the AMP tool above:
The view below shows the sculptured dies intended to close the wire
support barrel down on the insulation.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P255.jpg
The wire grip dies are smaller in area and less 'sculptured'
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P256.jpg
Low cost tools can have some 'problems'. View below shows two
tools, one of which has too much space between wire and insulation
grips. It did not produce good crimps.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P257.jpg
The narrower spacing centers the grips in each half of the PIDG
terminal's insulation barrel.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P258.jpg
In some cases, the dies are the same shape on both sides in which
case it doesn't matter which way the terminal goes in the tool.
This is the case with the crimp tool I used to sell . . . and I
believe B&C still does.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P259.jpg
As a review on terminal application technologies and wiring
practices, I'll recommend the following:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
As to "testing" a finished crimp, you can install a red terminal
on a 22AWG wire and hang a gallon jug of water on the wire while
holding the terminal in a pliers. Blue terminals terminals crimped
onto a 16AWG wire should lift two jugs. Yellow terminals on a 12AWG
wire is good for three jugs.
Alternatively, you can cut through the terminal's wire grip and
see if the joint is gas tight like:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/GL.jpg
Tools come in all flavors and ranges of prices. Not ALL tools do
a good job on ALL terminals. You're looking for tools that do
an adequate installation on PIDG style terminals and unless
purchased from a name like AMP, doing the tests described above
is a good thing to do.
Bob . . .
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: | Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks@comcast.net>
For those of you more versed at this than I - I am considering a single
alternator / dual battery system based on specific design goals, but
would appreciate the benefit of your opinions.
A friend and I are both building IFR RV7A's, and for the most part share
common electrical system design goals. Neither of us are planning
electrically dependent engines.
With alternator failure in mind, we can identify three groups of
equipment:
(1) stuff we just don't need if the alternator fails (eg - second
radio, external lights)
(2) minimum stuff we'd LIKE to keep after alternator failure (VERY
basic IFR stuff - aviate, navigate, communicate - but no redundancy and
no need to request any sort of help or priority from ATC)
(3) stuff required to continue within our fuel capacity after
alternator failure (attitude, altitude, hdg, xpndr, etc)
The loads required by number three can be supported just fine by a
single, reasonably sized battery. However, the items in number two,
which includes pitot heat, etc (remember here - IFR) exceed the capacity
of a reasonably sized battery. In fact, it may exceed the capability of
the SD8. The end result is that we are looking into the 20amp
vacuum-pad mounted alternator and accompanying $$$. We'd like to not
spend the extra dollars.
Aside from cost, this would give us two additional benefits. We both
will have glass EFIS screens, etc - which we would like to power from an
isolated battery source during engine cranking. I understand that this
should not be required per the manufacturers' claims - but it makes me
feel a lot better based on the money tied up in those screens.
Additionally, it allows us to follow the yearly battery swap-out /
replacement scheme.
I've looked through the archives, and haven't found sufficient answer,
so thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Bryan Hooks
RV7A - slow build
Knoxville, TN
Finish Kit
bryanhooks@comcast.net
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: very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:45 PM 12/7/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Billingsley
><dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>
>Robert, I'm sure this has been asked several times...but what crimp tool
>do you recommend?
It was easy to recommend the tool I used to sell because I'd
checked it for proper closure of PIDG terminals onto MIL-W-22759/16
wire.
Beyond that, I have no recommendations other than to (1) buy
a tool specific to the terminals and wire you're going to use
from a company that knows what they're talking about (AMP,
Waldom, etc). (2) Otherwise, do the investigation described in
my other post to make sure your tool of choice is doing the job.
Bob . . .
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: | modern alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim and Lucy <jpollard@ciaccess.com>
I was talking with a friend that was until recently in the alternator
rebuild business. I had an old 1969 ford dump truck alternator regulator
get stuck on and fry a few things.(radio and ignition points)
He said lots of present day autos are external regulator type. The cars
computer controls the output with pulse width modulation. They often
put external regulators on them when the computer will not do it or
the wiring harness is bad somewhere and it is hard to find. Another
thing he mentioned is these new ones are less susceptible to overvoltage
because of something called avalanche (sp?) diodes. I think he was saying they
back flow if the voltage is to high and this sacrifices a little bit of
their material or ability to be diodes until they fail. Not quite sure
I understood this.
I guess the main point is that there is allot of externally regulated
alternators to choose from. They may be heavier than the NDs. I got
a ND alternator from a 1981 subaru NOS to use because it is the same
brackets as the newer ones that are on my subaru conversion.
Jim Pollard
Merlin ont
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: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:47 PM 12/7/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
>below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
>$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
>the AMP crimper is about $600.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
There are "AMP" tools and then there are "AMP" tools. AMP
and others offer a wide range of tools with equally wide
ranges of prices. The tool Phil has
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_3.jpg
is in the $100 range. To be sure, T-head AMP tool is the Cadillac
of PIDG/Plastigrip installation tools:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_T-Head_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_T-Head_2.jpg
and this tool is not cheap. New it's about $600. I've seen them
in the wild (surplus tool stores, ebay, etc.) for $100 to $200.
At one time, AMP sold some hardware-store/automotive tools for
installing PIDG/Plastigrip terminals. These sold for under $10.
Just a heads-up that the term "AMP" crimp tool can mean about
anything. Don't jump on it just 'cause it says made for "AMP".
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: Pitot tube design and functionality |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:30 PM 12/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>Good Evening Mike,
>
>Somewhere in the far reaches of my feeble gray matter, I seem to recall
>something about a requirement that the pitot heater be hot enough to
>assure that
>the water is taken above the boiling point almost immediately. It's kinda
>like
> hot wings. If they aren't hot enough to evaporate the moisture, it just
>warms it up enough to get run back!
>
>Am I way off base in that memory?
I've been watching developments in experimental pitot-heaters
with some concerns. I was involved in several investigations
into pitot-tube freezing at altitude with the heat on! Admittedly,
these occurred in flight conditions never experienced by our
propeller driven beer cans.
I do know that to get a heated pitot tube qualified is not a
simple task . . . nor is it cheap. There are few icing tunnels in the
world that can come close to simulating icing conditions that
mother nature can throw at an airplane.
I can only advise caution with deciding to purchase "new"
technology especially if the offerer hasn't done the research
to understand the real task. Here's a sample of some data I
took on a biz-jet pitot tube on a flight to 41K feet.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FirstFlt.pdf
At altitude temperatures and high airspeeds the
snoot of this tube runs over 90C most of the time. This
seems like it would be "plenty" hot but this particular
tube was marginal in the ice tunnel. Proof of the pudding
comes when super-cooled drops of water hit the tube and
provides an instantaneous cooling effect as if the
water were already frozen . . .
Yeah, we need a heated pitot to be "legal" but I know
I can fly an airplane without an airspeed indicator. Flying
the thing with 400 pounds of ice on it is another matter.
So perhaps the experimental offerings are good to the
95th percentile icing condition and will be just fine
if you're planning to get out of icing conditions ASAP.
Once you're out of ice, about any heat that brings tube
surface to some healthy value above 0C will eventually
clear the tube and restore IAS functionality.
I wish I knew more about the detailed physics involved
so that I could offer more than simple cautions.
Bob . . .
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Noise levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>I wonder if the single-phase PM alternators (without big cap) meet the mil
>standard (if there is one) for suppliers of electrical energy. If you
>have one of these alternators and expect to power any avionics with it, it
>only makes sense to install whatever is necessary (in terms of filters) to
>meet the DO/mil standard. If you're just going to run some strobes and
>nav lights, it probably doen't make any difference.
>
>Do you have any scope shots of the output of one of these devices?
Yup. Sorry to take so long to get these posted. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/SD-8_Noise_Data.pdf
Bob . . .
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
I think at Newark In One for about $110, (over)-pricey little devil.
-----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: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
<craig@craigandjean.com>
Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
the AMP crimper is about $600.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
Bill,
That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
await his input as well. With appreciation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Slaughter
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter"
<willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening to
the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end of the
terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
Bob, since you posted my photo--I'm flattered--is the orientation correct,
or do I need to reverse the connector in the die? It looks correct to me.
So I'm still stumped as to why some 22 AWG could be pulled out. Kindly
comment. Thanks.
-----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: very dumb question about crimping
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:47 PM 12/7/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
>below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
>$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
>the AMP crimper is about $600.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
There are "AMP" tools and then there are "AMP" tools. AMP
and others offer a wide range of tools with equally wide
ranges of prices. The tool Phil has
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_3.jpg
is in the $100 range. To be sure, T-head AMP tool is the Cadillac
of PIDG/Plastigrip installation tools:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_T-Head_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_T-Head_2.jpg
and this tool is not cheap. New it's about $600. I've seen them
in the wild (surplus tool stores, ebay, etc.) for $100 to $200.
At one time, AMP sold some hardware-store/automotive tools for
installing PIDG/Plastigrip terminals. These sold for under $10.
Just a heads-up that the term "AMP" crimp tool can mean about
anything. Don't jump on it just 'cause it says made for "AMP".
Bob . . .
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: G McNutt <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
Bryan Hooks wrote:
>For those of you more versed at this than I - I am considering a single
>alternator / dual battery system based on specific design goals, but
>would appreciate the benefit of your opinions.
>snip----------
>
>With alternator failure in mind, we can identify three groups of equipment:
>snip -------------------
>(2) minimum stuff we'd LIKE to keep after alternator failure (VERY basic IFR
stuff - aviate, navigate, communicate - but no redundancy and no need to request
any sort of help or priority from ATC)
>snip--------------------- However, the items in number two,which includes pitot
heat, etc (remember here - IFR) exceed the capacity of a reasonably sized battery.
In fact, it may exceed the capability of
>the SD8. The end result is that we are looking into the 20amp
>vacuum-pad mounted alternator and accompanying $$$. We'd like to not
>spend the extra dollars.
>
>
>
>
Hi Bryan
There are my thoughts which are worth exactly what you paid for them.
Unless you religiously trade out one battery every year as Bob N
suggests (and I presume many forget to do) is there really any
advantages to having a complex two battery system over a single large
battery?
Re pitot heat after alternator failure - I would not cater for that item
for the following reasons. Some seem to be planning RV systems as if the
RV was certified for known icing conditions. Trying to cater for
simultaneous multiple problems such as alternator failure, IFR with no
VFR close by, and long term ice will require building an RV-23 (my
sources tell me that it will look like a King Air).
Consider your planned operations, hard winter IFR at night, get the
RV-23 or mostly low altitude summer IFR, on-top with approaches.
Realistically about 5-20% of your total flying time IFR, probably!
Then you will not be flight planning into forecast icing conditions but
may encounter some icing from which you should climb/descend or 180 out,
so maybe 5 minutes in icing? During those 5 minutes what are the chances
of the alternator being off-line? And what is the worst case senario
with pitot ice, useing GPS groundspeed?
Also when you loose your (single) alternator during IFR you should
notify ATC and probably divert to the nearest suitable airport, the
alternator going off-line may be the first indication of a larger problem.
George in Langley BC
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! --
|