AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Thu 12/08/05


Total Messages Posted: 43



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 12:20 AM - Re: Temperature compensation (Gilles Tatry)
     2. 04:20 AM - Re: Re: SD-8 Noise levels (Bruce Niles)
     3. 04:49 AM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Tim Olson)
     4. 05:56 AM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     5. 05:56 AM - Re: Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification (James Clark)
     6. 06:06 AM - Re: Re: SD-8 Noise levels (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     7. 06:43 AM - Re: Battery OV event testing / OVERVOLTAGE / VR analys / Attn: Bob ()
     8. 07:13 AM - I'm Baaaaacccckkk! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     9. 07:20 AM - Re: Re: Battery OV event testing / (\)
    10. 07:41 AM - Re: very dumb question about crimping (Phil Hooper)
    11. 07:46 AM - Tyco contactors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    12. 07:57 AM - Re: I'm Baaaaacccckkk! (Gilles Thesee)
    13. 08:03 AM - Re: I'm Baaaaacccckkk! (John Huft)
    14. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: SD-8 Noise levels (Matt Prather)
    15. 08:32 AM - Re: I'm Baaaaacccckkk! version=3.0.3 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    16. 09:09 AM - Re: modern alternators (Charlie Kuss)
    17. 09:30 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc  (bob rundle)
    18. 09:36 AM - Re: modern alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    19. 09:46 AM - Re: TMF cells (was...I'm Baaaaacccckkk!) (Eric M. Jones)
    20. 10:13 AM - Re: Re: TMF cells (was...I'm Baaaaacccckkk!) (Ken)
    21. 10:30 AM - Re: Z-14 (John Burnaby)
    22. 10:53 AM - Re: Temperature compensation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    23. 11:13 AM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc  (BobsV35B@aol.com)
    24. 11:17 AM - Re: Modern ND external voltage regulator (Charlie Kuss)
    25. 11:26 AM - Re: modern alternators (Charlie Kuss)
    26. 12:50 PM - Z19 main & engine battery bus (Greg@itmack)
    27. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc  (Bill Denton)
    28. 02:03 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 (Lee Logan)
    29. 02:23 PM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc  (BobsV35B@aol.com)
    30. 02:32 PM - ATO/ATC Circuit Breakers (Lincoln Probst)
    31. 02:32 PM - Re: Temperature compensation (Gilles Tatry)
    32. 02:46 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 (BobsV35B@AOL.COM)
    33. 02:57 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator (Tim Olson)
    34. 03:28 PM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc  (Bill Denton)
    35. 03:36 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 (Peter Laurence)
    36. 05:37 PM - Re: Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification (Bryan Hooks)
    37. 05:41 PM - Pitot tube question (Bob White)
    38. 05:46 PM - Re: Lorance Air map 2000c connector plug (Chris & Kellie Hand)
    39. 05:53 PM - Re: Pitot tube question (Craig Payne)
    40. 05:58 PM - Re: Re: Looking for alternator  (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
    41. 05:59 PM - Re: Pitot tube question (Bob White)
    42. 06:16 PM - Re: Re: TMF cells (was...I'm Baaaaacccckkk!) (John Huft)
    43. 10:14 PM - Re: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc  (BobsV35B@aol.com)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:20:40 AM PST US
    From: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
    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 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:20:11 AM PST US
    From: "Bruce Niles" <bniles@cfl.rr.com>
    Subject: Re: SD-8 Noise levels
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Niles" <bniles@cfl.rr.com> Nice pictures. But, I don't understand the relevance by just looking at the graphs. I'll be running an SD20 as a backup and would like to power my backup BMA G3 with it. Could you put things in perspective. Thanks. BCN ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:49:15 AM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: Looking for alternator
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> One of the reasons I went with the Plane Power 70A was that I was willing to trade off it's slightly larger size and weight for it's cooler running. The 60A small alternators all use smaller pulleys and therefore run at a much higher rotating RPM. The 70A alternator has a larger pulley and will turn slower, while still making it's rated 70A power. So it'll run cooler. In the long run, I figured that reliability is driven by both number of rotations, and environmental conditions and proper ventilation. Also, they specifically designed their alternator so the front and rear fans both bring in cool air and exhaust out the center area. Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 DO NOT ARCHIVE 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? > > 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 To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com 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 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:56:20 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: very dumb question about crimping
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:36 PM 12/7/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> 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. In the paragraph above the third picture I offered: "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 Hmmmm . . . I did not pick up on earlier assertions that you're not getting consistent crimps on 22AWG wire. I think I'd like to look at your tool. Can you mail it to me? Bob Nuckolls 6936 Bainbridge Rd. Wichita, KS 67226 Bob . . .


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:56:20 AM PST US
    From: James Clark <jclarkmail@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Clark <jclarkmail@gmail.com> I am sure there are many different views but for me ... I am installing dual PC680 batteries along with dual alternators (Z-14). I have two batteries, either of which can crank the engine (unless on last leg) and additional capacity to keep electrons flowing if the alternators quit. There is flexibility in mounting as well if you use the PC680's. My second alternator is an SD20. Overkill? Maybe. A little heavier? Yes. Cost over the SD8? A few hundred dollars. Peace of mind for me? Priceless. The few hundred dollars more is not going to be remembered when the plane is done but if you don't put in what YOU feel is adequate, there will be a question every time you head out into less that VFR weather. Personally, I see the Z-14 as being quite elegant and simple (maybe I should say straightforward) though some view it as complex. On 12/7/05, Bryan Hooks <bryanhooks@comcast.net> wrote: > > --> 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 > > -- This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at james@nextupventures.com .


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:06:03 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: SD-8 Noise levels
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> >Nice pictures. But, I don't understand the relevance by just looking at the >graphs. I'll be running an SD20 as a backup and would like to power my >backup BMA G3 with it. Could you put things in perspective. Thanks. BCN On or about the time the question about SD-8 noise was posted, we were discussing industry/military standards for max allowable noise output from power generating sources. Mil-Std-704 suggest the following spectrum limits: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/MSTD704_28V_Noise.jpg This says maximum tolerable noise on 28v system is 1 volt RMS over range of 1000 to 5000 Hz. This is about 3v peak-to-peak. For a 14v system we cut this in half for 1.5v peak-to-peak. The data I gathered on the SD-8 under various loads and filter combinations showed that we don't go over 0.5 volts pk-pk at any frequency. Ergo, the SD-8 would comply with Mil-Std-704 requirements. The SD-20 is a 3-phase, wound field machine like the vast majority of alternators in vehicles and will also be fine in the Mil-Std-704 world. The SD-8 is a single-phase, PM alternator with a potential for unusual noise characteristics. This little trip to the work bench answered the question. Bob . . .


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:43:19 AM PST US
    From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
    Subject: RE: Battery OV event testing / OVERVOLTAGE / VR analys
    / Attn: Bob --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> I have been in contact with the engineering department of a manufacture of voltage regulators (of all kinds but NipponDenso internal units in particular). They have offered to test and analyzed any VR for me to determine the failure mode. Failure mode not just *it's broke*. They not only have typical digonostic test equipment, they have X-ray and other tools, and they will go as far as DE-CAPPING, removing the pot compound and dissecting the discrete component. ANY ONE WANT TO SEND ME A FAILED REGULATOR, EXPECIALLY THIS ONE BOB? PLEASE CONTACT MY EMAIL: gmcjetpilot (at) yahoo.com I will be glad to pay for shipping. Thanks. I would love to know what went wrong with this unit. George ---------------------------------


    Message 8


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:13:24 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: I'm Baaaaacccckkk!
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Some years ago there was a new kid on the block out in Colorado who set out to build the next greatest thing in lead-acid technology batteries. The Bolder TMF cells held a lot of promise but for a variety of financial and technical reasons, the program in Colorado flopped. I'd had some communication with Bolder folks back then and those letters were still in someone's files where the new owners in Singapore found it and dropped me a note this morning. The Phoenix it seems is rising from the ashes. Check out other pages on boldertmf.com but in particular . . . http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community. 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
    Time: 07:20:46 AM PST US
    From: "\"Robert L. Nuckolls, III\" <nuckollsr@cox.net> OVERVOLTAGE / VR analys
    / Attn": nuckollsr@cox.net
    Subject: Re: RE: Battery OV event testing /
    OVERVOLTAGE / VR analys / Attn: Bob --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> OVERVOLTAGE / VR analys / Attn: Bob At 06:42 AM 12/8/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> > > I have been in contact with the engineering department of a manufacture > of voltage regulators (of all kinds but NipponDenso internal units in > particular). > > They have offered to test and analyzed any VR for me to determine the > failure mode. Failure mode not just *it's broke*. > > They not only have typical digonostic test equipment, they have X-ray > and other tools, and they will go as far as DE-CAPPING, removing the pot > compound and dissecting the discrete component. > > ANY ONE WANT TO SEND ME A FAILED REGULATOR, EXPECIALLY THIS ONE BOB? As I mentioned before, many days had passed between the repair of the failed alternator and onset of dialog about the event. Probability of retrieving the original failed regulator was nil. You're correct that accurate diagnosis of the failure mode in modern components requires more than the wet finger, sensitive nose and a voltmeter. On several occasions we've opened integrated circuits and custom hybrids for detailed analysis. My only caution for opening an off-the-street part is that while one may indeed find a shell-crater on the die, without access to the mask data that made the die, there's risk for mis-interpreting observations . . . or no interpretation at all. If I can put my hands on a failed part, I'll send it to you. 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
    Time: 07:41:47 AM PST US
    From: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com>
    Subject: very dumb question about crimping
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hooper" <phil@hdmnet.com> Yes I will do that. 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 09:36 PM 12/7/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> 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. In the paragraph above the third picture I offered: "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 Hmmmm . . . I did not pick up on earlier assertions that you're not getting consistent crimps on 22AWG wire. I think I'd like to look at your tool. Can you mail it to me? Bob Nuckolls 6936 Bainbridge Rd. Wichita, KS 67226 Bob . . .


    Message 11


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:46:02 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Tyco contactors
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Regarding: DC power contactors for master and starting application I'm a pilot beginning an experimental aircraft build project. I'd appreciate you opinion on power contactors for master and starting. There is a new line of contactors from Tyco that may be more reliable than the contactors we currently use in aircraft. Here's a web link to the datasheet. http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/datasheets/ev200.pdf I think they're developed for electric vehicles and other industrial applications. Notice the coil voltage is 9 to 36 volts and holding current is only 0.07 A at 24 volts. One drawback: the unit price is around $140. I've had a starter contactor fail on my Cessna 185 recently and am worried about the master....although it's still OK. What's you opinion on this new contactor and do you think the contactors we presently use on aircraft are unreliable? Thanks for your great web page The parts you've described are indeed a first class product. The task before you is to determine return on investment for substituting the upgraded part. You used the word "reliable". May I suggest that concentration on probability of failure of any single part does not necessarily translate into lower risk. We know that all parts will fail at some point in time. One user may perceive the failure as a manifestation of poor reliability while someone else calls it an end-of-service-life event. To the airborne pilot, putting labels on the failure is not a helpful exercise. Your particular study is made more difficult for a type certificated airplane. No matter what your personal conclusions are, you are limited by regulatory decree for choices. You've had a failure of a contactor. How old (not necessarily in terms of flight hours) are your contactors? Perhaps it's time to simply replace all contactors as a preventative measure. If they're the low-dollar contactors like Cessna was fond of, then cost of replacement is relatively low and a whole new suite of contactors offers a zero-time beginning for future operations. Further, with a TC'd airplane, it's most inconvenient to install simple changes that drive toward failure tolerant designs being crafted in owner built and maintained (OBAM) aircraft community. In the ideal world, I can offer ways to manage maintenance in your airplane with very economical parts and changes to architecture that make the reliability/service-life of those parts immaterial to your SYSTEM reliability. If you're considering the Tyco relays for your 185, then it follows that your ready to joust with the dragons at the FAA. If so, then consider also doing little changes to the ship's architecture (like an e-bus) that make failures of the existing contactors a non-event. For your experimental project the job is easier. You need to decide what $time$ your willing to invest in a classier product and does that investment promise a lower overall cost of ownership? In terms of SYSTEM reliability, we can help you craft an architecture where the selection of contactors has no effect on overall reliability. May I suggest you join us on the AeroElectric-List for further discussions with myself and others who may add some clarity of thought and mission to your task? See: http://aeroelectric.com/consulting.html Regards, Bob . . .


    Message 12


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:57:05 AM PST US
    From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
    Subject: Re: I'm Baaaaacccckkk!
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit : > Check out other pages on boldertmf.com but in >particular . . . > >http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf > >I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there >are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community. > > > > Hi Bob, Amazing indeed. Thank you for the link. I would be very interested in any further information about those promising thin film batteries. The French aerodynamicist Michel Colomban, of Cri-Cri and BanBi fame (and MCR 4S too) is developing a new super light single seater, and asked me about batteries. I think this new technology might suit his needs for lightness, *if* it performs as advertised. Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr


    Message 13


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:03:36 AM PST US
    From: John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net>
    Subject: Re: I'm Baaaaacccckkk!
    version=3.0.3 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net> During my consulting days in Boulder, I visited this company, and tried to work with them for a client. They had an impressive technology, thin film plates wound in a cylinder like a capacitor, similar to that used with thicker layers by Gates (now Optima). They were focused on C-cell flashlight battery sized cells, and aiming primarily at rechargeable apps like drills and screwdrivers. The internal impedance was lower than any battery on the market today, and you could recharge them very quickly. Unfortunately, they thought that the customer should be the one to solder terminals onto the end of the coil of the very thin plates. I told them that this was the hardest part of the manufacturing process, and the one most influential on reliability. They would not listen, maybe because they hadn't figured out how to do it, or maybe because they were out of money and just trying to sell what they had. After a few arguments with them, we gave up. Later, they did run out of money, I guess, and disappeared. Good luck with them. Maybe they have some new money, and can afford to do the whole job. It would make a great battery. John Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > Some years ago there was a new kid on the block out in > Colorado who set out to build the next greatest thing > in lead-acid technology batteries. The Bolder TMF cells > held a lot of promise but for a variety of financial > and technical reasons, the program in Colorado flopped. > > I'd had some communication with Bolder folks back then > and those letters were still in someone's files where > the new owners in Singapore found it and dropped me a note > this morning. The Phoenix it seems is rising from the > ashes. Check out other pages on boldertmf.com but in > particular . . . > > http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf > > I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there > are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community. > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > > >


    Message 14


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:14:35 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: SD-8 Noise levels
    From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net> Thanks! Matt- > --> 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 15


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:32:50 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: I'm Baaaaacccckkk! version=3.0.3
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > >After a few arguments with them, we gave up. Later, they did run out of >money, I guess, and disappeared. > >Good luck with them. Maybe they have some new money, and can afford to >do the whole job. It would make a great battery. > >John Agreed. We had samples of a 12v battery array at B&C a long time ago. Early tests indicated a great ability to dump contained energy. I think the array of 6 c-size cells tests at over 700A. Bill put the thing on a charger-maintainer. He demo'd the thing several times for folks but after a period of time . . . less than a year as I recall. The critters had died without ever having been in-service. Several folks at OSH showed up with Start-Sticks and other products using the Bolder TMF technology. Again, amazing demonstrations but un-demonstrated service life. Skip Koss talked about these batteries in on of my forums at OSH and opined that these would be the wave of the future . . . carry just enough stored energy to get an engine going . . . That reminds me, I need to drop a note to Skip in case he's not aware of the resurrection. Bob . . .


    Message 16


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:09:12 AM PST US
    From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
    Subject: Re: modern alternators
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> >--> 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 Jim, Chrysler is using this design. They have bundled not only the voltage regulator into the ECM (engine computer), but electrical control of the air conditioning compressor as well. I have a customer (1995 Dodge Van) who is mad as hell that his A/C won't work till he buys a remanufactured ECM for $350! This is what your friend is referring to, regarding installing a stand alone VR on this type of vehicle. It's cheaper to install a stand alone external VR, than to replace the ECM. Charlie Kuss


    Message 17


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:30:31 AM PST US
    From: "bob rundle" <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle" <bobrundle2@hotmail.com> Can the 300XL perform approaches without the GI102A indicator? Will the guidance just be viewed off of the 300XL faceplate? It is in an area where I can observe it easily. Thanks for all the wisdom, BobR > >Time: 06:18:20 AM PST US >From: 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 18


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:36:13 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: modern alternators
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 12:06 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> > > > >--> 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. <snip> >Jim, > Chrysler is using this design. They have bundled not only the voltage >regulator into the ECM (engine computer), but electrical control of the air >conditioning compressor as well. I have a customer (1995 Dodge Van) who is >mad as hell that his A/C won't work till he buys a remanufactured ECM for >$350! This is what your friend is referring to, regarding installing a >stand alone VR on this type of vehicle. It's cheaper to install a stand >alone external VR, than to replace the ECM. >Charlie Kuss Interesting. 1995?? Ten years worth of market life translates into lots of after-market product flow and inventory. Anyone know of a part number we can check on? It's going to be some time before I can visit any of my usual data-sources to find out more. Bob . . .


    Message 19


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:46:45 AM PST US
    From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
    Subject: Re: TMF cells (was...I'm Baaaaacccckkk!)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" nuckollsr@cox.net http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf >I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there >are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community. >Bob . . . Bob, Now if I read this datasheet right--- The cells come (initially) in one expensive form (judged by the construction). They are spiral construction. But let's look at numbers. Nominal Voltage 2V Okay, so let's build a battery with a string of six of these-- Min Capacity 1.0 Ah/1 hour (this is a somewhat unusual way of specifying the capacity). So if we series connect six of these we have a 12V (nominal) battery of 1 Ah. It would weigh 6X 88.5 g or 531 g. If we wanted an 18 Ah battery we would have to parallel 18 of these strings =9558 g (without connection hardware weight). More than 21 pounds. Hmmmmm................... So what are these best for? They have high power density, but not high energy density; which means that a smaller battery of these can crank a larger engine. They would be expensive (I'll bet you dollars to donuts). See these guys for good info...... http://www.dcbattery.com/faq.html#1 I'm still looking at the Optima D-51 Yellowtop. (Spiral construction) 41 Ah (c/20) 26 pounds. And I'll change it when the Xantrex XBM battery meter tells me to. Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 (508) 764-2072 If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. --William Blake


    Message 20


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:13:15 AM PST US
    From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
    Subject: Re: TMF cells (was...I'm Baaaaacccckkk!)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net> There are interesting possibilities. One could hang a 1.2 lb battery on the starter. No hot high amperage cable and no external starter contactor since the battery will go dead pretty quick if the starter sticks on anyway. After all a modern EFI engine starts first time ;) For an installation with two alternators there might be little need to carry a conventional battery heavy enough to crank the engine or supply an emer bus. Ken Eric M. Jones wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >nuckollsr@cox.net > >http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf > > > >>I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there >>are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community. >>Bob . . . >> >> > >Bob, > >Now if I read this datasheet right--- > >The cells come (initially) in one expensive form (judged by the >construction). They are spiral construction. But let's look at numbers. > >Nominal Voltage 2V Okay, so let's build a battery with a string of six >of these-- > >Min Capacity 1.0 Ah/1 hour (this is a somewhat unusual way of specifying >the capacity). > >So if we series connect six of these we have a 12V (nominal) battery of 1 >Ah. It would weigh 6X 88.5 g or 531 g. If we wanted an 18 Ah battery we >would have to parallel 18 of these strings =9558 g (without connection >hardware weight). More than 21 pounds. > >Hmmmmm................... > >So what are these best for? They have high power density, but not high >energy density; which means that a smaller battery of these can crank a >larger engine. They would be expensive (I'll bet you dollars to donuts). > >See these guys for good info...... http://www.dcbattery.com/faq.html#1 > >I'm still looking at the Optima D-51 Yellowtop. (Spiral construction) >41 Ah (c/20) 26 pounds. And I'll change it when the Xantrex XBM battery >meter tells me to. > >Regards, >Eric M. Jones >www.PerihelionDesign.com >113 Brentwood Drive >Southbridge MA 01550-2705 >(508) 764-2072 > >


    Message 21


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:30:05 AM PST US
    From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury@impulse.net>
    Subject: Re: Z-14
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury@impulse.net> Will digest the alternate systems, Bob. James thanks for illuminating the fine points. Much help in figuring out what's best for me. John


    Message 22


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:53:54 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Temperature compensation
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > 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). Okay, to what degree of uncertainty will your operating rules tolerate in knowing the real value of these temperatures? Plus/Minus 5C . . . 10C . . . 1C? > 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. Understand. You need to first put your arms around your error budget. > 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. For flight tests, would you consider a stand-alone, data acquisition system that's removed later for routine flight? Bob . . .


    Message 23


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:13:00 AM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Afternoon Bob, That is my understanding. Just to be sure we are on the same page, I believe you could get all of the approach information, observe all annunciations and follow the course line on the panel unit instead of the external devices, but that would not be legal to do under IFR conditions except if you had declared an emergency or managed to get a local approval covering that operation. Highly unlikely such an approval would be forthcoming! Unfortunately, Garmin does not provide a downloadable simulator such as they do for the 480 and others. I have downloaded the owners manual and, as I read it, all of the required information should be presented on the panel unit. I am planning on using a 300XL in that same manner myself. I have a friend who has one installed as a strictly VFR unit and I hope to be able to run through it before I place the order. I probably will not get that done in less than a week. The one thing that worries me is whether or not there will be any need for the use of a resolver. I have operated the 530 simulator and it can be used without the resolver. The set will ask you to set a bearing, but if you disregard that command, it goes ahead and does what it is supposed to do anyway. I know that sounds a bit erratic and, possibly, complicated, but it all traces back to a mistake Garmin made ten years ago in their original certification for IFR purposes! How soon do you need to make your decision? I THINK it will work just fine, but haven't actually checked the box. 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 12/8/2005 12:24:55 P.M. Central Standard Time, bobrundle2@hotmail.com writes: Can the 300XL perform approaches without the GI102A indicator? Will the guidance just be viewed off of the 300XL faceplate? It is in an area where I can observe it easily. Thanks for all the wisdom, BobR


    Message 24


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:17:29 AM PST US
    From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> alternators was modern alternators
    Subject: Re: Modern ND external voltage regulator
    alternators was modern alternators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> alternators was modern alternators At 12:35 PM 12/8/2005, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckollsr@cox.net> > >At 12:06 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss > <chaztuna@adelphia.net> > > > > > > >--> 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. > > <snip> > > > >Jim, > > Chrysler is using this design. They have bundled not only the voltage > >regulator into the ECM (engine computer), but electrical control of the air > >conditioning compressor as well. I have a customer (1995 Dodge Van) who is > >mad as hell that his A/C won't work till he buys a remanufactured ECM for > >$350! This is what your friend is referring to, regarding installing a > >stand alone VR on this type of vehicle. It's cheaper to install a stand > >alone external VR, than to replace the ECM. > >Charlie Kuss > > Interesting. 1995?? Ten years worth of market life translates > into lots of after-market product flow and inventory. Anyone > know of a part number we can check on? It's going to be > some time before I can visit any of my usual data-sources > to find out more. > > Bob . . . Bob, A quick call to my local parts supplier shows 3 possible alternators for this vehicle. The first two are a 75 amp and a 90 amp unit. The parts man says that his replacement book shows a single unit for replacement. The largest alternator is a 120 amp unit. All 3 alternators are Nippon Denso units. His book calls out a # 13245 for the smaller units. This is in SunCoast brand. I asked for a Lester number, but his catalog didn't show it. He suspects that it's the same as the SunCoast number. A quick Google search has led me to Transpo's web site. I was able to search for 1995 Dodge B Series Van w/ 4.9 L 6 cylinder engine. They show separate part numbers for both the 75 amp and the 90 amp units. (I suspect that Sun Coast substitutes the 90 amp unit for the 75 amp models in their catalog) The OE part number is 1210003460 The Transpo rectifier part number is INR729. They have a photo & drawing of the rectifier pack below http://195.125.241.148/Catalog/Car_Fr.htm Plug in the vehicle info listed above to view the information mentioned. They do no allow linking to individual pages. :-( SunCoast has a web site, but there is no tech info on it, only contact info. See http://www.suncoastproducts.com/ Hope this helps Charlie Kuss


    Message 25


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:26:12 AM PST US
    From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
    Subject: Re: modern alternators
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> At 12:35 PM 12/8/2005, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckollsr@cox.net> > >At 12:06 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss > <chaztuna@adelphia.net> > > > > > > >--> 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. > > <snip> > > > >Jim, > > Chrysler is using this design. They have bundled not only the voltage > >regulator into the ECM (engine computer), but electrical control of the air > >conditioning compressor as well. I have a customer (1995 Dodge Van) who is > >mad as hell that his A/C won't work till he buys a remanufactured ECM for > >$350! This is what your friend is referring to, regarding installing a > >stand alone VR on this type of vehicle. It's cheaper to install a stand > >alone external VR, than to replace the ECM. > >Charlie Kuss > > Interesting. 1995?? Ten years worth of market life translates > into lots of after-market product flow and inventory. Anyone > know of a part number we can check on? It's going to be > some time before I can visit any of my usual data-sources > to find out more. > > Bob . . . Bob, I see a LOT of ECM failures on Dodge full size vans for the past 20 years. They insist on mounting the ECM on the firewall (engine compartment side) My experience as a mechanic is that in autos and trucks, mounting the ECM under the hood increases the failure rate by two orders of magnitude. This is not manufacturer dependant. All installations of ECMs under the hood prove to be problematic. Heat and vibration kill them. Charlie


    Message 26


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:50:49 PM PST US
    From: "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com>
    Subject: Z19 main & engine battery bus
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com> The main and engine battery bus in Z19 are meant to be 6 inches from the battery contactors. I know that 6" is not exactly written in stone but if I wanted to bring the bus into the cabin would a fuseable link be acceptable? Thanks Greg RV8


    Message 27


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:02:11 PM PST US
    From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
    Subject: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com> Why would it not be legal? -----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 Afternoon Bob, That is my understanding. Just to be sure we are on the same page, I believe you could get all of the approach information, observe all annunciations and follow the course line on the panel unit instead of the external devices, but that would not be legal to do under IFR conditions except if you had declared an emergency or managed to get a local approval covering that operation. Highly unlikely such an approval would be forthcoming! Unfortunately, Garmin does not provide a downloadable simulator such as they do for the 480 and others. I have downloaded the owners manual and, as I read it, all of the required information should be presented on the panel unit. I am planning on using a 300XL in that same manner myself. I have a friend who has one installed as a strictly VFR unit and I hope to be able to run through it before I place the order. I probably will not get that done in less than a week. The one thing that worries me is whether or not there will be any need for the use of a resolver. I have operated the 530 simulator and it can be used without the resolver. The set will ask you to set a bearing, but if you disregard that command, it goes ahead and does what it is supposed to do anyway. I know that sounds a bit erratic and, possibly, complicated, but it all traces back to a mistake Garmin made ten years ago in their original certification for IFR purposes! How soon do you need to make your decision? I THINK it will work just fine, but haven't actually checked the box. 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 12/8/2005 12:24:55 P.M. Central Standard Time, bobrundle2@hotmail.com writes: Can the 300XL perform approaches without the GI102A indicator? Will the guidance just be viewed off of the 300XL faceplate? It is in an area where I can observe it easily. Thanks for all the wisdom, BobR


    Message 28


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:03:50 PM PST US
    From: Lee Logan <leeloganster@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lee Logan <leeloganster@gmail.com> Don't mean to sound dense, but I have little civil flying experience and am not sure of the "fuss" about heated pitot tubes. Am I wrong in assuming you could reasonably fly your airplane with no reference to airspeed, even in IFR conditions or do you lose all pitot-static reference instruments (altimeter and ROC also)? I lost airspeed once in heavy weather very early in my military flying career and though it definitely caught my attention, the fix was intuitive and immediate (forgot to turn pitot heat on, of course!). I did not see an effect on the altimiter or ROC, but the aircraft I was flying had multiple static ports and a CADC. Different situation, I suppose. If you leave it off until you actually lose A/S, does it work reasonably quickly to restore pitot/static performance or are you stuck without for awhile? I plan to put one in my F1, but they are expensive and I suspect would not be used often if ever. Is this something I really need from either a practical or regulatory standpoint. I didnt' see a requirement for it in the "Circular". Thanks and, regards, Lee


    Message 29


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:23:53 PM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 12/8/2005 4:04:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, bdenton@bdenton.com writes: Why would it not be legal? Good Afternoon Bill, Are we discussing an experimental or a normal category airplane? If you are installing an IFR approvable GPS in a normal category airplane, the installation must ether get a local approval or be in total compliance with an available STC. To my knowledge, Garmin does not have any STCs for the GNC 300XL. They have an approval which they received at the factory for one specific airplane and they provide a copy of that paperwork to use as data when you apply for your own FAA Approved IFR GPS Navigation Installation. If the only things you change are small details concerning where things are located, a "Follow On" approval is easy to get. The more you change, the more problematical is the approval. Eliminating an external CDI and resolver is a pretty big change! If you are making the installation in an experimental airplane, you would have to ask somebody other than me for a positive answer, but, as I see it, as long as you have complied with the intent of AC 20-138 and are willing to defend your interpretation at a hearing, if it ever becomes necessary, I would say you are good to go. If a GPS installation in an experimental airplane uses all of the annunciators and remote switches and CDI's that the manufacturer listed in his original certification, I would say that the hearing would be a no brainer. However, if you have made major changes in equipment being used and the placement of components from what the manufacturer suggests, I think you would have a lot more to explain at that hearing. Make any sense at all? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503


    Message 30


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:32:53 PM PST US
    From: Lincoln Probst <elprobst@yahoo.com>
    Subject: ATO/ATC Circuit Breakers
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lincoln Probst <elprobst@yahoo.com> So after looking at the LED ATO fuses from a previous post, I ended up also seeing these fuse/circuit breakers-- ie, normal ATO/ATC fuse dimensions, but manually reseting circuit breakers. I saw them here: http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_069.PDF (About 1/2 way down on the right, stock number 46791 for a 5 amp version). They are a little sparse on details other than "Conforms to SAE spec J553 and J1284." and they are for up to 28V DC operation. I searched the list but didn't find anything... anyone think about these or know of reasons not to use them? "CIRCUIT BREAKER 10 AMP LOW PROFILE BLADE MOUNT Category: Circuit Breakers Sub Category: Fuse Style-ATO/ATC Price: $2.28 each" Pluses: 1) Easy to reset 2) Easy to identify blown circuit Minuses: 1) Tempting to reset in-flight. Violates one main point of fuses in the first place-- the circuit blew for a reason, no sense having a fire. 2) $2.28each instead of $0.0867 each 3) Fewer amperage ratings they come in 5,6,7.5,10,15,20,25,30amps only -- so you can't have a 1,2,3,4 amp circuit protection. 4) Not tried-n-true which is the other great advantage of the simple fuse I guess I don't need to make a decision now... I already have the fuses and fuse blocks etc. I'm just curious about it. It is funny. I really WANT to do this and put them right on the panel!!! Sometimes I'm just crazy. Building a 601XL, Corvair powered. Lincoln Probst


    Message 31


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:32:54 PM PST US
    From: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
    Subject: Re: Temperature compensation
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr> > Okay, to what degree of uncertainty will your operating rules > tolerate in knowing the real value of these temperatures? > Plus/Minus 5C . . . 10C . . . 1C? > For flight tests, would you consider a stand-alone, data acquisition > system that's removed later for routine flight? My purpose is not scientific, but just getting better knowledge of my aircraft. I intend to use only the instruments panel gauges to record parameters evolution and , just using them the most accurately I can: anyway, my dials do not allow me to read less than 2C. I got the following answer from UMA. The trouble is that my cockpit is an open one, not air-conditionned: "We do not, nor do I know of anyone who offers junction compensation. I am sure for the right price it can be obtained. Someone got a little wordy with an our explanation of the thermocouple operating principle. What it amounts to is the cold junction is designed to be on the gauge in a heated cockpit. If there is an extension used, that junction should be in the same environment as the gauge for the guage to read correctly. A worst case scenerio is for the "splice" to be in the engine compartment in a cooling airstream, flying in Alaska. If you were using this as scientific instrumentation, then the absolute accuracy depends on the relative junction temperatures. If our installation instructions are followed, the error is within 3%, well within the accuracy needed to monitor engine operating temperature trends."


    Message 32


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:46:15 PM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@AOL.COM
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Evening Lee, Some pitot tubes incorporate the static ports, but most do not. I do not know what you flew in the military, but some sophisticated airplanes take all of the data, feed it through various computers and then feed it to us aviators. If that is the case, I would never attempt to say what might happen. However, for the simple systems used in most GA aircraft, there is no direct connection between the pitot tube and any other instrument unless something breaks. The airspeed will sometimes stay where it is when it freezes. Other times, it will increase or decrease depending on how tight the system is and whether the airplane is climbing or descending. I agree that losing an airspeed indicator under normal conditions should be a no brainer for any competent instrument pilot, but it may take a while to realize what has failed and why. If the pitot tube does freeze shut and the heat is then turned on, all indications generally return to normal. Very little time is needed Rate of climb, altimetry and other functions that rely on static air should not be affected unless the static vents also freeze. Personally, I like having a heated pitot tube and I use it any time I am flying in any visible moisture regardless of the temperature. I was convinced by my previous employer that doing so saves maintenance costs so I do it on my own airplane. Would I be willing to fly an airplane IFR that did not have heated pitot capability? Absolutely! However, I prefer that it be heated. One of those ubiquitous individual decisions I guess. 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 12/8/2005 4:07:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, leeloganster@gmail.com writes: Don't mean to sound dense, but I have little civil flying experience and am not sure of the "fuss" about heated pitot tubes. Am I wrong in assuming you could reasonably fly your airplane with no reference to airspeed, even in IFR conditions or do you lose all pitot-static reference instruments (altimeter and ROC also)? I lost airspeed once in heavy weather very early in my military flying career and though it definitely caught my attention, the fix was intuitive and immediate (forgot to turn pitot heat on, of course!). I did not see an effect on the altimeter or ROC, but the aircraft I was flying had multiple static ports and a CADC. Different situation, I suppose. If you leave it off until you actually lose A/S, does it work reasonably quickly to restore pitot/static performance or are you stuck without for awhile? I plan to put one in my F1, but they are expensive and I suspect would not be used often if ever. Is this something I really need from either a practical or regulatory standpoint. I didn't' see a requirement for it in the "Circular".


    Message 33


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:57:03 PM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: Looking for alternator
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Not that it matters, because if $485 makes you flinch, $425 will too, but you can get the GA-1000 for $425 from SteinAir. Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 DO NOT ARCHIVE Craig Payne wrote: > --> 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) > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > 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 > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > 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 > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.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 34


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:28:26 PM PST US
    From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
    Subject: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com> My question was prompted by the necessity of an external HSI/CDI. I think I read somewhere that it is not required if the GPS unit itself provides an acceptable "on screen" CDI, but I'm not sure. However, I referred to the GNS 480 and the external HSI/CDI is required for IFR approval in a certified aircraft. Perhaps someone else has read something similar? -----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 In a message dated 12/8/2005 4:04:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, bdenton@bdenton.com writes: Why would it not be legal? Good Afternoon Bill, Are we discussing an experimental or a normal category airplane? If you are installing an IFR approvable GPS in a normal category airplane, the installation must ether get a local approval or be in total compliance with an available STC. To my knowledge, Garmin does not have any STCs for the GNC 300XL. They have an approval which they received at the factory for one specific airplane and they provide a copy of that paperwork to use as data when you apply for your own FAA Approved IFR GPS Navigation Installation. If the only things you change are small details concerning where things are located, a "Follow On" approval is easy to get. The more you change, the more problematical is the approval. Eliminating an external CDI and resolver is a pretty big change! If you are making the installation in an experimental airplane, you would have to ask somebody other than me for a positive answer, but, as I see it, as long as you have complied with the intent of AC 20-138 and are willing to defend your interpretation at a hearing, if it ever becomes necessary, I would say you are good to go. If a GPS installation in an experimental airplane uses all of the annunciators and remote switches and CDI's that the manufacturer listed in his original certification, I would say that the hearing would be a no brainer. However, if you have made major changes in equipment being used and the placement of components from what the manufacturer suggests, I think you would have a lot more to explain at that hearing. Make any sense at all? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503


    Message 35


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:36:04 PM PST US
    From: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net>
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net> -----Original Message----- Is this something I really need from either a practical or regulatory standpoint. I didnt' see a requirement for it in the "Circular". Thanks and, regards, Lee Lee, The following is an excerpt from Part 91.205 Paragraph (b) pertains to VFR day. No requirement for a heated pitot. Peter RV9-A wings d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used. (3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft: (i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in Sec. 121.305(j) of this chapter; and (ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 80 degrees of pitch and 120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with Sec. 29.1303(g) of this chapter. (4) Slip-skid indicator. (5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure. (6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation. (7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity. (8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon). (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).


    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
    Time: 05:37:56 PM PST US
    From: "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks@comcast.net>
    Subject: Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks@comcast.net> >>I may be messing up this 'snip' deal - but I'll give it a shot ... G McNutt wrote: Re pitot heat after alternator failure - I would not cater for that item for the following reasons. <snip> Consider your planned operations, hard winter IFR at night, <snip> 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? <snip> >>Great point I had overlooked! I don't plan to be in icing conditions any longer than required to get out. 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. >>Also a good point - honestly, I don't know if I'm REQUIRED to tell ATC about the loss of an alternator or not - especially if I don't need it to power all my minimum required equipment. That's one I'll have to look into. >>As far as the dual batteries go - remember that being able to swap the batteries was only one of the advantages - not the driving factor. Having both batteries allows me to power my fancy ($$$) screens during start without worry of damage to them. I know I could simply turn them off during start, but I personally don't want to. George in Langley BC >>Thank you VERY much for taking the time to respond. Especially regarding the pitot heat and known icing bit. Can't believe I overlooked that. >> Bryan Hooks


    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
    Time: 05:41:10 PM PST US
    From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
    Subject: Pitot tube question
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com> I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material, that is broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a replacement connector. I don't know what brand it is. Thanks, Bob W. -- http://www.bob-white.com N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week) Custom Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/


    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
    Time: 05:46:28 PM PST US
    From: "Chris & Kellie Hand" <ckhand@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: Lorance Air map 2000c connector plug
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris & Kellie Hand" <ckhand@earthlink.net> Thanks Jim. Replying here to put answer to my question in the archives as Lowrance does not put this in the product manual and their web page for the 2000C is no help either. Have to do extensive cross referencing on the rest of their web site of pinouts with older products. Cable needed to connect the Lowrance Airmap 2000C gps to an autopilot (Trio in my case) is identified in Lowrance's answer pasted below: Thank you for your inquiry. The correct part is the NDC-2, #101-36. This can be ordered by contacting LEI at the number shown below. Thank you for choosing Lowrance. Lowrance Customer Service 12000 E. Skelly Dr. Tulsa, OK 74128 Customer Service: 1-800-324-1356 Lowrance website: <http://www.lowrance.com/> LEI: Parts & Accessories 1-800-324-0045 online at <http://www.lei-extras.com/> Chris Hand RV-6A, finishing stages ----- Original Message ----- From: "James H Nelson" <rv9jim@juno.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lorance Air map 2000c connector plug > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com> > > Chris, > I had the same problem with Lorance. The end of the discussion > was to use their computer hook up from the GPS (with the 12 volt auto > power plug). I am using the Air map 500 and I have to pull out the #2 > (signal) pin and the #5 (gnd). That way I can use it to drive my Digi > Trak... They are beginning to realize they need to put on their web site > how to use their GPS to drive something like an auto pilot. > > Jim Nelson > >


    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
    Time: 05:53:10 PM PST US
    From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
    Subject: Pitot tube question
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the e-mail list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to the members of the list). -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com> I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material, that is broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a replacement connector. I don't know what brand it is. Thanks, Bob W. -- http://www.bob-white.com N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week) Custom Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/


    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
    Time: 05:58:52 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Looking for alternator
    From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net> Hmm, actually I have no idea. I know that your standard heated pitot is no fun to grab when on. I used to know exactly how many watts the Gretz pitot is and what its high temp is but I can't seem to find it. Based on the published 7 amp draw it is somewhere in the 85 watt neighborhood. I do agree that you would want to make sure that the water doesn't just run back and freeze. Warren sometimes trolls these groups so he may chime in with the details. I also know that the pitot is a very thermally conductive plastic and the thermostat is supposed to maintain it x degrees above freezing at a minimum warming up to x. Warren also recommends running 14ga to his pitot with a 10 amp breaker so I can always replace if needed with a standard heated AN5812. Incidentally, I just saw Aircraft Spruce is also carrying it now for $425. Michael Sausen -10 #352 inventorying fuselage Do not archive ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Evening 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 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
    Time: 05:59:43 PM PST US
    From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
    Subject: Re: Pitot tube question
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com> Sure after my next trip to the airport. Probably tomorrow. Bob W. On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:52:32 -0700 "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> > > Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the e-mail > list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to the > members of the list). > > -- Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com> > > I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin > connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material, that is > broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a replacement > connector. I don't know what brand it is. > > Thanks, > Bob W. > > -- > http://www.bob-white.com > N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week) > Custom Cables for your rotary installation - > http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ > > > > > > > > -- http://www.bob-white.com N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week) Custom Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/


    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
    Time: 06:16:26 PM PST US
    From: John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net>
    Subject: Re: TMF cells (was...I'm Baaaaacccckkk!)
    version=3.0.3 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net> The Optima and the Bolder batteries share the same spiral construction, but where the Optima has (just guessing here) layers that are .1" thick, the Bolders are .005 thick. The layers are paper thin to the eye. This gives the Bolder batteries an internal impedance that is way lower than the Optima. Sorry I can't remember numbers, but that was about 1994 or so. So, they can deliver bursts of Amps (power) way more than other batteries, and take a re-charge equally fast. They demonstrated starting their Toyota pick up with a string of 6 C-cells. As lead-acid batteries, they would have been much better in portable tools than the ni-cads of the day. So, I guess they would have their applications. John Eric M. Jones wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > nuckollsr@cox.net > > http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf > > >>I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there >>are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community. >>Bob . . . > > > Bob, > > Now if I read this datasheet right--- > > The cells come (initially) in one expensive form (judged by the > construction). They are spiral construction. But let's look at numbers. > > Nominal Voltage 2V Okay, so let's build a battery with a string of six > of these-- > > Min Capacity 1.0 Ah/1 hour (this is a somewhat unusual way of specifying > the capacity). > > So if we series connect six of these we have a 12V (nominal) battery of 1 > Ah. It would weigh 6X 88.5 g or 531 g. If we wanted an 18 Ah battery we > would have to parallel 18 of these strings =9558 g (without connection > hardware weight). More than 21 pounds. > > Hmmmmm................... > > So what are these best for? They have high power density, but not high > energy density; which means that a smaller battery of these can crank a > larger engine. They would be expensive (I'll bet you dollars to donuts). > > See these guys for good info...... http://www.dcbattery.com/faq.html#1 > > I'm still looking at the Optima D-51 Yellowtop. (Spiral construction) > 41 Ah (c/20) 26 pounds. And I'll change it when the Xantrex XBM battery > meter tells me to. > > Regards, > Eric M. Jones > www.PerihelionDesign.com > 113 Brentwood Drive > Southbridge MA 01550-2705 > (508) 764-2072 > > If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as > it is, infinite. > --William Blake > > > > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 10:14:24 PM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Evening Bill, The original language (there was a revision in the fall of 2003 and I have not read it thoroughly. Things may have changed) in AC 20-138 said the CDI in the Panel Control Unit was not likely to meet the requirements of being in the line of sight, but did not say it could not be used. It is my contention that the CDI in the PCU could be used if someone wanted to press the point. To my knowledge, no one has attempted such an approval. In any case, nothing is legal for IFR flight unless some sort of approval has been obtained. My knowledge of the experimental certification process is even skinnier than my knowledge of the certificated world. I would say a very good case could be made for using the CDI in the panel, but I wouldn't submit it without doing some careful research and writing my reasoning in a supporting document. It certainly appears to me that the person building an experimental airplane is the person responsible for writing and approving the Airplane Flight Manual Supplement. If that supplement says you can use the PCU's CDI, I think that would suffice, but if anything happened, you would want data available to use when explaining your position at the hearing! If you copied a manufacturers suggested supplement, there should be no question at all, but if you deviate from their suggestions? 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 12/8/2005 5:32:35 P.M. Central Standard Time, bdenton@bdenton.com writes: However, I referred to the GNS 480 and the external HSI/CDI is required for IFR approval in a certified aircraft.




    Other Matronics Email List Services

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

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --