Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:37 AM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (Steve Sampson)
2. 02:19 AM - Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss) ()
3. 05:18 AM - 24V starter on 12V system (Mark & Lisa)
4. 05:18 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
5. 07:32 AM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:59 AM - Re: Modern ND external voltage (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:04 AM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:07 AM - Re: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss)
9. 08:09 AM - Re: Pitot tube question (Bob White)
10. 08:22 AM - Re: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss) (gert)
11. 08:25 AM - Requesting Special Handling (John Markey)
12. 08:30 AM - Re: Pitot tube question (Bruce Gray)
13. 08:37 AM - Re: Tyco Contactors . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 08:38 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Wayne Sweet)
15. 08:56 AM - Re: 24V starter on 12V system (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 09:07 AM - Re: Modern ND externaly regulated alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 09:09 AM - Re: Pitot tube question (Bob White)
18. 09:27 AM - Re: Pitot tube question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 10:50 AM - Re: Temperature compensation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 01:09 PM - Busses, here we go again (Alan K. Adamson)
21. 01:21 PM - Re: Temperature compensation (Gilles Tatry)
22. 02:35 PM - Re: Busses, here we go again (John Schroeder)
23. 03:47 PM - Re: Temperature compensation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 04:09 PM - Version 9.0 of CD is posted. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 04:15 PM - Re: Pitot tube question (Bob White)
26. 05:54 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
27. 06:07 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
28. 06:12 PM - Thanks for Crimper Help (Dennis Johnson)
29. 06:42 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Bob C.)
30. 06:46 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Bob C.)
31. 07:00 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
32. 07:17 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit OptionsGlass Cockpit Options (Tammy Goff)
33. 07:53 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
34. 08:19 PM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
35. 09:09 PM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (J. Mcculley)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Larry - yes, I have built a -9A and am building a -4. I have never thought
VANS' strong point is electrics and that is why I asked. I was hoping
someone would say they knew what temps the battery was enduring since it
ought to be a problem and appears not to be.
Steve.
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft. For
> their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine side
> of
> the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due
> mostly
> to W&B considerations.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
>
> "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility,
> and
> at your own risk."
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
>> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>>
>> Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall.
>> It
>> must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
>> considerable.
>>
>> Comments? Steve.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
> on behalf of the London Business School community.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> 09/12/2005
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator
>application of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model
>Hondas that have the VR in the ECM or other external location?
>Charlie Kuss
NO, Charlie I am very familiar with all models of ND alternators and the
smallest ones with internal fans and external regulator is 117 amps. If
you change the pulley and can fit it, go for it. ND does make smaller
alternators with external VR's, but they are OLD circa 1980 external
fan units form 35-60 amps. They are not real big or are they small or
light. I would not go with these since technology is much better in the
late 80's alternators, which are still the basis of new alternators made
to day. Internal dual fans are much better and they have better
windings and made for high speed rotation, which improves efficiency.
(weight for power output has been getting better and better)
In a word done that been there. However for those who need the
power and can fit the alternator in the cowl (RV cowls are a little tight),
than it could be a good choice. Since they are found on 2000 model
Dodge vans and a few Chrysler Jeep products, you can find them new
or newer. Sadly they are big honking units. To be honest I have not
held on in my hand but the dimension of the mount lugs is out about
an inch from other units.
If you don't need 117-120 amps and weight I would stick with a smaller
35-55 amp unit. If you need a little more than the 60-80 amp units are
a good choice but they are all GASP! Internal regulated. That is the
way folks do it today. I understand the fear and trepidation of using
a GASP! Internal VR alternator, but may be you may consider it in the
future. Despite the guy who flew with his head in the clouds while he
cooked his battery, I would still suggest you consider using an I-VR
alternator, but that is your choice. Why not just write a check to B&C
and buy one of their 60 amp external units, or that other company that
makes (modifiys) ND alternators for external VR use. Well I think I
know the answer, cost.
I have also talked to Van about the BRAND of rebuild they have in
service. I discussed getting all new units and may be helping them buy
new alternators vs. rebuilds. For the record Van has about 1000 Van's
/ Nippondenso 55 amp alternators flying and only a few have crap-ed
out. Most if not all the returns they have seen have been from pilot
monkey business and playing Captain switch thrower. I am sure there
are many Van's Aircraft has not been told about, however I do think
new is better than rebuilds.
Would you be interested in a NEW ND alternator?
When I say NEW, I mean new made from aftermarket parts.
Nippondesno does not make NEW alternators for units say 5 years
or more out of production. Since most NEW ND alternators are BIG
now a days you are stuck with rebuilds usually. Well a new market is
emerging of 100% NEW out of production alternators made by the
aftermarket companies. It is kind of like what Superior and ECI are
doing with Lycoming engines, "CLONES".
If you want REAL Nippondenso, new and small you are stuck with 45
amp industrial applications that are still being made by ND. If you
want a 55-60 amp unit it is going to be used / rebuilt or aftermarket.
I am getting samples of NEW aftermarket units and evaluating them
for aircraft use. If you want one let me know. I will be getting 45 amp
units and 55 amp units.
George
---------------------------------
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 24V starter on 12V system |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
Ladies and Gents,
I posted a photo share several weeks ago looking for help with my system
schematic:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/index.h
tml
I was hoping someone would have a better idea of how to proceed than me.
Here's the deal. The link is to a DWG file of my main power distribution
system schematic. I started with Z-11 and added a subsystem that Bob
developed for me to allow two batteries to run in parallel during normal ops
and in series for start (this allows the use of a 24V starter in a 12V
system). My plan for this system is to use 1 Alternator with 2 Batteries for
system redundancy (instead of 2 Alternators and 1 Battery since I have to
use 2 Batteries anyway).
My understanding of procedures in the event of an alternator failure (with
Z-11) is to switch off the DC master and switch on the E-bus alternate feed.
If I follow this procedure with the system depicted in the attached
schematic I'll only get power from the main battery during E-bus alternate
feed operation (with the DC master off, the second battery is disconnected
from the system).
Assuming I choose to retain this system architecture, how do I change this
schematic to allow both batteries to power the E-bus during alternate feed
ops?
Alternatively, since I plan to replace batteries every two years and, if
IFR, to land immediately in the event of an alternater failure (Bob, I know
you advocate continuing to destination assuming battery reserves and power
usage are known, but that's just beyond my comfort level for IFR flight),
should I just scrap the E-bus architecture altogether and load shed
manually? Is there another benefit to the e-bus architecture besides
convient load shedding?
Thanks in advance!
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
GRT's display gets even brighter and easier to see in direct sunlight, not that
it's hard to see otherwise.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
>
> You probably aren't interested in it but I like the MGL Ultra Horizon XL.
> The best thing about it (aside from price) is that it has a large
> *monochrome* display. As I have said before don't buy any instrument with an
> LCD until you have personally seen it in direct sunlight.
>
> http://www.mglavionics.co.za/ultraHXL.html
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
> Paul
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
> -->
>
> After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
> regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
> considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so if
> for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
> 7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
> a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the driver.
> And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
> Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine Monitor
> display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I will also have
> a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
> The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A and
> the SL30.
>
>
> I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA, TruTrak
> ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard altimeter, airspeed
> and VSI backup gages.
>
>
> So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may have
> very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
> - of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small screen
> Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about "their"
> product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Valovich
>
> Booger
>
> Ridgecrest, CA
>
> 661-400-3640
>
>
>
>
>
>
GRT's display gets even brighter and easier to see in direct sunlight, not that
it's hard to see otherwise.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Craig Payne" craig@craigandjean.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <CRAIG@CRAIGANDJEAN.COM>
You probably aren't interested in it but I like the MGL Ultra Horizon XL.
The best thing about it (aside from price) is that it has a large
*monochrome* display. As I have said before don't buy any instrument with an
LCD until you have personally seen it in direct sunlight.
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/ultraHXL.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
Paul
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cock
pit Options
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
-- <PVALOVICH@DCSCORP.COM>
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so if
for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the driver.
And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine Monitor
display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I will also have
a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A and <B
R> the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA, TruTrak
ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard altimeter, airspeed
and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may have
very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small screen
Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about "their"
product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
ifts!)
much more:
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:04 PM 12/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
><retasker@optonline.net>
>
>You are confused.
>
>The wire goes in at the larger opening end, but is crimped at the other,
>smaller end.
>
>I.e. shove the wire into the open end of the terminal to be crimped,
>which is opposite the actual ring, faston, etc. end of the terminal.
>The end the wire goes in is where the insulation gets crimped (the
>larger die opening) and the end nearest the ring, faston, etc. is where
>the wire gets crimped (the smaller end).
>
>Dick Tasker
Correct. The confusion arises mostly because folks don't make
a distinction between the two tasks for closing a terminal
onto a "wire" when the wire is made up of two parts: conductor
and insulation. I've been writing about a 'wire grip' and 'insulation
grip' but unless the reader picks up on the difference between
'wire' as a product or 'wire' as a component of that product. The
explanation is unclear. I'll modify my writing accordingly.
We've had discussions on the list about various tools offered
to the building commuinity for application of terminals. Here's
one:
-------------------------------------
Snipits from thread of November 2004
-------------------------------------
Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
other direction).
However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
following pictures on my website.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P255.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P256.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P257.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P258.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P259.jpg
>Are any of the interchangeable dies for crimping coax cable?
Yes . . . but die-sets were more than half
cost of tool and taking time to change them out
was a bit of a pain. All my tools are dedicated to
a single task.
There was another thread concerning a Cleveland tool someone
purchased Sept 2004
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
>I sent the WTC380 to you on Monday via priority mail Bob. I tried to tell
>you by replying to the sender but the mail was returned undeliverable. I
>sent crimp examples to Buzz at Cleveland who was also very interested in
>knowing if there was a problem with their product.
Got it today. Short story is that failure to grip a 22AWG wire
at all was because terminal was in tool backwards. Unlike the
tools B&C sells with symmetrical dies, this tool is placement
specific as to insertion of terminals. But even after you get the
terminal in the right way, there's a bit of a problem. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND60A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND61A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND66A.jpg
Bottom line is that this tool was designed for use with
PVC wire having larger outside diameter than Tefzel and
in spite of its very nicely formed die set, just doesn't
close the insulation grip adequately on a PIDG terminal.
I'd appreciate it if you would forward a copy of this
message to Buzz. Your tool is on the way back . . .
-----------
Paul is correct in that you cannot rely on the statements
of tool and terminal manufacturers to insure compatibility
of products - ESPECIALLY when the tool manufacturer and
terminal manufacturer are different folks. These pictures
illustrate one example of what might be called a fairly
universal tool.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/67A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/678.jpg
These pictures are the business end of a t-head AMP tool
I bought almost exactly 40 years ago. It features an adjustable
insulation grip die set. Most of my AMP tools have adjustable
insulation grip dies although the t-head has the widest range.
Lot cost tools like the one that started this thread
never have adjustable insulation grip dies . . . so one
needs to be more selective.
When I offered the low cost tool for the first time about
6 years ago, I tested the tool with AMP PIDG terminals
on tefzel wire and found the combination adequate. About
a year ago, I got some samples of terminals from JST in
Japan. These are mil-qualified but when tested with the
tool I sold, produced results I didn't want to sell.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg
The upper terminal was a JST, the lower is AMP PIDG.
I was disappointed because the JST terminals were about
half the cost of PIDG . . .
The idea behind the shop notes at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
was to reinforce the simple ideas about successful
terminal installation. Unless you're using tools mated
to terminal by the same manufacturer, it's a good idea to
be treat the combination with suspicion until you confirm
that the terminals, tool and wire are suited for the
task. It's not difficult if you take time to understand
what's needed.
--------------- End of Past Threads --------------------------
Okay down to the question at hand: Phil sent me his AMP tool
for evaluation. This picture illustrates the features of the
die-set for this tool along with proper insertion of terminals for
installation.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_1.jpg
I found that this tool produces consistent and adequate grips
on the CONDUCTORS of all sizes of wire that are covered by the
red/blue/yellow PIDG terminals. I cannot explain why Phil was
not getting consistent grips on his 22AWG applications except that
the terminals must not have been inserted and centered in the
dies as shown in this photo set.
Now the down side: This tool does not close the INSULATION grip
sufficiently to grab the smaller Tefzel wires. This was a
problem noted with one of the tools above in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
This tool would be just fine for 99.9% of all commercial work
where fatter PVC insulation was used on the wires.
This investigation reenforces words I've offered about
matching the tool/terminal/wire combinations you plan to
use. Even when (as in this case) terminals and tool
are both by AMP . . . the combination does not produce adequate
installations for Phil's airplane wherein the wire of
choice is 22759/16 Tefzel.
Now, if I were working a job in the field and this was
the only terminal/tool combo available for the task. One
could consider putting 1/2" hunks of heatshrink on the
ends of the stripped wires before installing a terminal.
This would "fatten" up the insulation sufficiently to
achieve a good insulation grip with PIDG terminals in
this tool. However, I wouldn't want to wire a whole
airplane with this technique.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:16 AM 12/10/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> >Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator
> >application of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model
> >Hondas that have the VR in the ECM or other external location?
> >Charlie Kuss
>
>
>NO, Charlie I am very familiar with all models of ND alternators and the
>smallest ones with internal fans and external regulator is 117 amps . . . .
<snip>
>If you don't need 117-120 amps and weight I would stick with a smaller
> 35-55 amp unit. If you need a little more than the 60-80 amp units are
> a good choice but they are all GASP! Internal regulated. That is the
> way folks do it today. I understand the fear and trepidation of using
> a GASP! Internal VR alternator, but may be you may consider it in the
> future. Despite the guy who flew with his head in the clouds while he
> cooked his battery, I would still suggest you consider using an I-VR
> alternator, but that is your choice. Why not just write a check to B&C
>and buy one of their 60 amp external units, or that other company that
> makes (modifiys) ND alternators for external VR use. Well I think I
> know the answer, cost.
George, you're digressing from informative dissertation to
unkind rhetoric and propaganda. Nobody has EVER argued with
you over the demonstrated reliability of the modern alternators.
As I've stated many times, I have clients who embrace certain
traditional design goals which tend to be reenforced by data
we get on real field failures of the IR alternators. You may
personally brush these incidents aside in your personal design
decisions. I must object to your backhanded references to
folks who have suffered these failures and have brought their
stories forward (warts and all) to help raise our level of
understanding. This atmosphere chases folks away.
I've oft suggested that it's just as important for builders
to share their failures as it is to share their successes. Knowing
what DOES NOT work is as valuable as knowing what DOES work.
It keeps us from re-inventing the same mistakes over and over
again. But folks at risk for being targets of derisive comments
and unkind behaviors will not be inclined to be forthcoming.
With this case in particular, you've had no conversation with
the individual and have know knowledge of details of the event
or the investigations that have been launched because of his
willingness to share.
May I suggest that whacking at anyone like this is counter-productive
and perhaps even mean spirited? Please offer your data and
logic with the goal of advancing our understanding and refrain
from such personal attacks when you know so very little
about them. There's a big difference between noting some level
of ignorance as a matter of fact and hurling a label of ignorance
at someone just because they disagree with you.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Great question!!!! Is there anyone out there with a willingness
to go find out? This thread could go on for weeks with lots of
opinions and anecdotes stirred into the stew but with no conclusive
data generated.
I've often suggested that the 40-hour flyoff should include
the kinds of investigations we do on production aircraft. Our
#1 and #2 flight test articles are covered with various sensors
and data recording systems which are used to confirm our design
results.
If someone has a firewall mounted RG battery in an RV and
would be willing to go get some flight test data next summer,
I'll provide the data acquisition system and sensors to get the
numbers. It will take some time and effort. It won't be cheap
as it involves installation flight testing of several hours
and removal.
But with such data in hand, we can co-author an article that
will answer the questions that will make future threads on
this topic little more than snippets referring the questioner
to real data.
Bob . . .
At 09:34 AM 12/10/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
><SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
>Larry - yes, I have built a -9A and am building a -4. I have never thought
>VANS' strong point is electrics and that is why I asked. I was hoping
>someone would say they knew what temps the battery was enduring since it
>ought to be a problem and appears not to be.
>
>Steve.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
> > <lhelming@sigecom.net>
> >
> > The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft. For
> > their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine side
> > of
> > the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due
> > mostly
> > to W&B considerations.
> >
> > Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
> >
> > "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility,
> > and
> > at your own risk."
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
> >> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
> >>
> >> Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall.
> >> It
> >> must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
> >> considerable.
> >>
> >> Comments? Steve.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 05:16 AM 12/10/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> >Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator
> >application of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model
> >Hondas that have the VR in the ECM or other external location?
> >Charlie Kuss
>
>
>NO, Charlie I am very familiar with all models of ND alternators and the
>smallest ones with internal fans and external regulator is 117 amps. If
>you change the pulley and can fit it, go for it. ND does make smaller
>alternators with external VR's, but they are OLD circa 1980 external
>fan units form 35-60 amps. They are not real big or are they small or
>light. I would not go with these since technology is much better in the
> late 80's alternators, which are still the basis of new alternators made
> to day. Internal dual fans are much better and they have better
> windings and made for high speed rotation, which improves efficiency.
> (weight for power output has been getting better and better)
>snipped
>
> If you want REAL Nippondenso, new and small you are stuck with 45
> amp industrial applications that are still being made by ND. If you
> want a 55-60 amp unit it is going to be used / rebuilt or aftermarket.
>
> I am getting samples of NEW aftermarket units and evaluating them
> for aircraft use. If you want one let me know. I will be getting 45 amp
> units and 55 amp units.
>
> George
George,
Actually, I have a NAPA rebuilt 70 amp ND alternator off of a 1991 Toyota
Camry. Lester #13277 See
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd70206.htm
This also comes as an 80 amp unit Lester # 13331 See
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd80205.htm
I am capable of converting this unit to external regulator if I decide to
go that way. I have a spare "core" alternator to practice on. I asked about
Honda units simply because the internal fans spin in the correct direction
for use on a Lycoming. Bob & others have commented before that fan
direction is not that critical for our purposes.
Last night I searched through various Mopar and Honda wiring schematics
on my automotive ALLDATA software. I didn't find any externally regulated
Honda units newer than 1983. I'm not wild about using an alternator off of
a 20+ year old car model. They are readily available now. The problem comes
5 to 10 years down the road. These cars are all headed for (or already in)
the junk yard. The supply of cores and the demand for on the shelf rebuilt
units will be long gone in 2011 or 2016. I'm planning on heated seats or
heated clothing for my RV-8A project. That is one reason why I want a unit
with 60+ amp capacity. The other reason is I, like you, believe that an
alternator's life expectancy is directly related to how hard (percentage of
rated output) it is used.
Next time I have one of the newer Mopar externally regulated alternators
out of a vehicle, I'll compare it to my current unit. I'll check weight and
physical dimensions. For the benefit of the other listers, it should be
noted that most alternators used since the mid 1980s, have serpentine style
pulleys. These can be swapped out for the older 2.5" diameter V type
pulleys used on the earlier models. The early 1980s model units and the
later 1990s internally regulated units all use 15mm diameter rotor shafts.
Because of this, you can simply swap out the pulleys. I'm going to use a 4"
diameter aluminum aftermarket pulley.
One more question George. In my ALLDATA software, it calls the ND
alternators (Chrysler also uses Bosch units) "Corporate Units". Can I infer
from this that these alternators are actually made by Chrysler (or a
subsidiary) under license from ND? Or is there another explanation?
Charlie Kuss
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
I also found the following on the side of the connector:
"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
Thanks,
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/
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: gert <gert.v@sbcglobal.net>
Hi George
here is a question for you. Do you know of replacement brush holders
which would replace an existing brushholder and regulator, to an
externally regulated brush holder. The idea is on the following web page
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/index.htm
I have the brush holder mentioned on this page and looking at the ND
alternator unit I have from the suzuki samurai, it appears to be off
only a few degrees in the mounting hole region, I can't but wonder if
there exists a lester part# for my ND alternator bursh holder which
would bring the contacts out rather than to the internal regulator.
do u know where such info might be found to determine what different
brush holders fit a particular ND alternator???
Thanks
Gert
>NO, Charlie I am very familiar with all models of ND alternators
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Requesting Special Handling |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Markey <markeypilot@yahoo.com>
Old Bob wrote:" ... but I do not agree that you cannot make a request to have
your flight handled differently than the controller was expecting without declaring
an emergency."
I agree, Bob. You can always ask. Never mind a failure, I will ask for special
requests even if it is just a trivial thing like flying into a busy airport
for the first time, when I'm using a new instrument, especially the fancy gps,
and when I'm flying a rental or the CAP plane into complex airspace.I'll
tell Approach that I am a "rookie" to their airspace. After broadcasting this
tidbit, I've never been rebuked. I often offer to circle until they can handle
a "rookie". I did this on a FAA flight review and totally surprised the inspector
- but make a favorable mark with him.
The most important time to request special handling is a "first flight". I first
flew my "used" Glasair at St. Pete in Florida [that mythical land south of
Chicago with 70' sunny skies in January... sigh ...]. The controller even contacted
Tampa and gave me a flying altitude block in the pattern, since he figured
I'd bust the Class C ceiling - right up against Tampa's Class B floor
- learning to fly the GII, which climbed like a wild bird uncaged for the first
time in years. I did break the Class C-B boundary a few times just sorting
through things while making approaches with the "option". When I finally departed
St. Pete, Tampa picked me up, turned me south and then asked me how I
liked the "new" plane. It seems they too were interested in the "first flight",
having known the original builder/owner [a great guy and a fine builder -
won Grand Champ with this plane, he did]. They were glad to help me out with
the "special request".
Ask for it is my advice, if it's just a few of the gyros running away, or if
things just are too new or too filled with local visual ground marker points
of reference from the local tower guys! - e.g., "fly the I-394 corridor to the
East-West Freeway" is just great if you know what and where the heck I-395
is from 2500 agl without the Rand-McNally atlas on your lap!
John Markey
Glasair IIS with a 6-pack, a gps and a g-meter
[to measure my crummy landings !!! ]
---------------------------------
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pitot tube question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
Upper right, phenolic connector.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
I also found the following on the side of the connector:
"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
Thanks,
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/
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tyco Contactors . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:06 PM 12/9/2005 -0800, you wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Bob, about my question on contactors. Conceptually,
I understand you point about system design to minimize the effect of any one
component failure. I've ordered your book to learn what you recommend about
system design in new all electric (no vacuum) airplanes. And I'll check in
with AeroElectric-list.
As a final though on this thread, I'm thinking of an aircraft electrical
system with a single 24 volt battery and single alternator. (I certainly
plan an essential bus) With an alternator failure, the bus voltage will
begin to drop dependent on the load. I think I can select most if not all
the essential components to operate down to about 10 volts. As you know,
new electrical components (radios, EFIS, gyros, gauges, panel lighting, and
more) operate from about 30 volts down to about 10 volts. They increase
their current draw to maintain fixed power consumption. With a 24 volt
battery draining down to 10 Volts, more of the battery capacity can be used
down to the 10 V cutoff than when using a 12 volt battery down to a 10 V
cutoff. One hitch is the contactor that connects the battery to the
essential bus.
When a 12v battery gets down to 10v, it's 99% gone. When a 24v battery
gets down to 20v it's 99% gone. There is no value in attempting to
keep things alive below these levels.
This new Tyco contactor operates down to 9 volts but also works fine at 28
volts. (plus it draws less current than standard contactors) Standard 28
volt contactors may not pull-in this low thus defeating the benefit of
keeping the system operating all the way down to 10 V.
The old Stancore (S701-1) contactor stays closed down to 3 or 4 volts
but it's not a very useful trait.
Maybe this is simplistic and I should just plan a smaller back-up
alternator. However, even with a smaller back-up alternator, I would
probably want to repair the main alternator upon landing (flight duration of
up to one tank of gas). This wouldn't be much of a different safe flight
duration than that offered when draining down a 24 volt battery to 10 volts.
Have you considered this essential bus back-up power scenario and do you see
that I'm overlooking something?
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/DO-160_DC_Voltage_Input.gif
Yes, ENERGY management numbers. Items qualified to work in certified
aircraft need only show specified performance down to 22/11 volts
and marginal functionality down to 18/9 knowing that if the thing
is still useful in any way at 18/9, it will have sucked every watt-second
available from the battery.
The point of failure tolerant design is to KNOW that you have
sufficient watt-seconds of energy on board to do any conceivable
task irrespective of any single failure.
You need to start with a load-analysis of all the goodies you
plan to carry and sort the pile of accessories in light of
how you plan to use the airplane. Only then are you ready to
select an architecture and the parts needed to implement it.
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/9/2005 10:07:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
>
> The basic T-configuration (ASI, AI, Altimeter, and DG) with the two
> support
> instruments N&B or TC and VSI. At least that is what we called them a
> couple
> of decades ago.
> Wayne
>
>
> Sounds reasonable, but the VSI is not even a required instrument for IFR
> flight!
>
I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought airplane I
have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I use
it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will tell
immediately a deviation is happening before the altitmeter announces I've
screwed up.
Wayne
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 24V starter on 12V system |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:17 AM 12/10/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
>
>Ladies and Gents,
>
>I posted a photo share several weeks ago looking for help with my system
>schematic:
>
>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/index.h
>tml
>
>I was hoping someone would have a better idea of how to proceed than me.
>
>Here's the deal. The link is to a DWG file of my main power distribution
>system schematic. I started with Z-11 and added a subsystem that Bob
>developed for me to allow two batteries to run in parallel during normal ops
>and in series for start (this allows the use of a 24V starter in a 12V
>system). My plan for this system is to use 1 Alternator with 2 Batteries for
>system redundancy (instead of 2 Alternators and 1 Battery since I have to
>use 2 Batteries anyway).
>
>My understanding of procedures in the event of an alternator failure (with
>Z-11) is to switch off the DC master and switch on the E-bus alternate feed.
>If I follow this procedure with the system depicted in the attached
>schematic I'll only get power from the main battery during E-bus alternate
>feed operation (with the DC master off, the second battery is disconnected
>from the system).
>
>Assuming I choose to retain this system architecture, how do I change this
>schematic to allow both batteries to power the E-bus during alternate feed
>ops?
I'm sorry. I thought I'd posted a link to this last July. The drawing
was put up on the website back then at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Starter/24V_Starter_14V_System.pdf
>Alternatively, since I plan to replace batteries every two years and, if
>IFR, to land immediately in the event of an alternater failure (Bob, I know
>you advocate continuing to destination assuming battery reserves and power
>usage are known, but that's just beyond my comfort level for IFR flight),
>should I just scrap the E-bus architecture altogether and load shed
>manually? Is there another benefit to the e-bus architecture besides
>convient load shedding?
Getting rid of battery contactor loads. If you use a pair of 17 a.h.
batteries you'll have 34 a.h. capacity on board. If you can't comfortably
launch into IFR with that much energy in the bucket, you need
to reconsider your equipment. Did somebody will a suite of Cessna
500 series radios willed to you?
Bob . . .
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND externaly regulated alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>Bob,
> I had a bit more time to research this tonight. That SunCoast part number
>is the same as the Lester number. I found this info with photos and
>applications. All show external voltage regulator.
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90201.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90202.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90204.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90206.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90207.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90205.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90203.htm
>
>Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator application
>of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model Hondas that have the
>VR in the ECM or other external location?'
Great data Charlie, thanks!
One of the attendees at my seminar in Oregon last spring
was situated pretty high up in the Bosh marketing and
distribution system. He told us that Bosh doesn't make
anything smaller than 100A machines except when they're
doing alternators-to-print for ND and then 70A is
the smallest. Seems the automotive world is ramping
up their anticipated electrical loads. It may well
be that the "modern" externally or internally regulated
alternators will not be available in sizes smaller than
those already noted.
This may mean that individuals wanting to take advantage
of the popular lilliputian ND machines around today
will have to content themselves with after-market
clones and rebuilds. Not necessarily a bad thing,
just a portent of a shrinking market . . . but not
a problem in the foreseeable future.
Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
Thanks Bruce,
Pricey little thing isn't it.
Bob W.
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:30:04 -0500
"Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
>
> Upper right, phenolic connector.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----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: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
>
>
> I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
> Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
>
> I also found the following on the side of the connector:
> "Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
> assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
>
> Thanks,
> 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/
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pitot tube question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:30 AM 12/10/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
>
>Upper right, phenolic connector.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----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: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
>
>
>I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
>http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
>http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
>http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
>Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
>
>I also found the following on the side of the connector:
>"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
>assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
Do you have a 14 or 28 volt system? And if a 14v system,
are you sure this isn't a 28 volt pitot tube? Pitot
tubes with ceramic masts are very old devices. It may
be salvaged off an old airplane. The part numbers
you've cited remind me of drawing numbers for the
Mistubishi Diamond which we purchased in late 70's
and made it into the Beechjet.
The connector Bruce cited will probably fit your
tube. I'm not aware of any different sized connectors
for this task. The tube's appearance and part numbers
suggest that you may want to investigate whether or
not you have a tube that is truly compatible with
your system. The numbering system may be purely
coincidental but I'd sure check the tube's current
draw at 14v.
Bob . . .
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:31 PM 12/8/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> 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?
>
> +/- 5C should be acceptable
>
>
> > 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."
Interesting. I'm not sure all the folks in the conversation
are on the same page. Let's back track a bit.
I understand that your primary goal is to use the ship's
panel mounted instruments for all temperature studies and that
your concerns are for instrument calibration accuracy over
the anticipated range of cockpit environments.
I looked over UMA's website hoping to see engineering data
for installing and operating their products but no such luck.
Question: What style of instruments are they? 270 degree, air-coil
devices or 90 degree, pivot and jewel? I think I deduced from earlier
notes that these do not require external power and derive pointer
motion current directly from the thermocouple?
Can you scan and e-mail me copies of the instruction sheets that
came with your instruments?
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Busses, here we go again |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
So let's see if I can keep this simple.
A dual Alt/dual batt high performance airplane (ala Z14) I believe I've
followed the 6" rule where appropriate, and the 2AWG equal strap rule, but
I'm not sure about the long runs between the battery contactors and the alts
or the avionics area. So figured I'd ask the experts. What problems might
exist with the below setup?
- Both Alts on the engine, with no room for batteries on the firewall
- Batteries will be behind the front seats (it's a 2 seater)
- The main battery will have a contactor right at the battery, but will
require a run from that contactor to the starter relay which will be on the
firewall. This starter relay module will also have the fuseable link and
connection for the main alt
- the aux battery will have a contactor right at the battery, and a fuseable
link right after the contactor. Then a run of wire from the link to the aux
alternator (I'm not including the shunts on purpose for simplicity)
- each battery may have a battery buss, but living with the 6" rule is no
problem
- there will also be a crosstie contactor between the two batteries and in
this case, it will be strap tied into the battery contactors
Unless I missed something, this will mean that I'll have runs of wires from
the batteries to the firewall and to the avionics areas.
Long runs (4' ish to the firewall)
- Main Batt contactor to starter relay module (at the moment, this does not
include any protection, but could. It's a feed that goes to the starter
relay (on the firewall) directly, and off the input side of the starter
relay, it includes a fuseable link for the Main alt)
- Aux Batt contactor to Aux Alt is protected right at the Aux battery and
contactor with a fuseable link
- Ground
Medium runs (3' ish to the avionics area)
- Avionics master (feed from a contactor right at the Main battery Contactor
and includes a fuseable link right after the contractor, but before the run
of wire)
- Main Power Distribution Bus (p.bus - fuseable link protection right at the
main battery after the batt contactor)
- Aux Power Distribution Bus (e.bus - fuseable link protection right at the
aux battery after the batt contactor)
Short runs (6" rules)
- Main batt buss
- Aux batt buss
I've tried to follow the basic rules I believe, with the exception of that
one run from Main Batt to the starter relay, which isn't protected. What
other "beginner" mistakes have I created for myself?
Thanks in advance for the look :)
Alan
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
Bob,
You are right.
I realize, too late (I have got all the instruments), that they are not
ice-bath compensated, as I expected.
They are designed to be used in an air-conditionned cockpit, supposed at
75DegF. Mine is open, at ambient temp.
My only purpose is to be able to read directly the mesured temp, without
systematic mental calculations to deduce the mesured value from the
indicated one and the static temp. This correction could be done for flight
test recordings once on ground, but it seems unrealistic to survey temp
limitations with such mental procedure in flight.
I hope an accuracy close to the instrument's one when properly installed.
My first idea (probably dumb, seems too easy!) was to add another TC close
to the instrument to get ambient temp and wire both TCs to send to the
instrument a voltage corresponding to [T(mesured) + T(ambient) - 75DegF]. As
the instrument reads T(sent) - [T(ambient) - 75DegF], indicated value should
be T(mesured), as required. Can you see some solution that way?
My instruments are UMA 1 1/4" Air Core, 270 degrees (very nice, indeed) and
do need external power:
EGT N12117K1K7F000
CHT N12116U150C000
Oil Temp N12113U150C000
I send you copy of the instruction sheets:
One (Oil Temp) only says: "To be installed in an internal section of the
aircraft"
The other one (EGT, CHT) says: "Calibrated at a cold junction temperature of
75 DegF, so actual reading depends...etc..)
For your information, UMA's answer to a question about TC extension:
"You can use regular wire but you must use some type of connector. The
thermo wire should be crimped to its connector, the extension can be
soldered to its."
Any comment?
Thanks a lot for your precious help to all of us,
Gilles
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
<Snip>
>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."
Interesting. I'm not sure all the folks in the conversation
are on the same page. Let's back track a bit.
I understand that your primary goal is to use the ship's
panel mounted instruments for all temperature studies and that
your concerns are for instrument calibration accuracy over
the anticipated range of cockpit environments.
I looked over UMA's website hoping to see engineering data
for installing and operating their products but no such luck.
Question: What style of instruments are they? 270 degree, air-coil
devices or 90 degree, pivot and jewel? I think I deduced from earlier
notes that these do not require external power and derive pointer
motion current directly from the thermocouple?
Can you scan and e-mail me copies of the instruction sheets that
came with your instruments?
Bob . . .
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Busses, here we go again |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Terry -
We have about 12' runs from the bulkhead aft of the baggage compartment of
a Lancair ES for our Z-14 batteries. They go to thru studs on the
firewall. WE have the crossfeed contactor back with the battery
contactors. No fuseable links on the #2 AWG's at all. My understanding
from the book and the schematics is that you do not need them.
John
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:06:54 -0500, Alan K. Adamson <aadamson@highrf.com>
wrote:
> Unless I missed something, this will mean that I'll have runs of wires
> from
> the batteries to the firewall and to the avionics areas.
--
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:18 PM 12/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry"
><gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>You are right.
>I realize, too late (I have got all the instruments), that they are not
>ice-bath compensated, as I expected.
>They are designed to be used in an air-conditionned cockpit, supposed at
>75DegF. Mine is open, at ambient temp.
>
>My only purpose is to be able to read directly the mesured temp, without
>systematic mental calculations to deduce the mesured value from the
>indicated one and the static temp. This correction could be done for flight
>test recordings once on ground, but it seems unrealistic to survey temp
>limitations with such mental procedure in flight.
>I hope an accuracy close to the instrument's one when properly installed.
>
>My first idea (probably dumb, seems too easy!) was to add another TC close
>to the instrument to get ambient temp and wire both TCs to send to the
>instrument a voltage corresponding to [T(mesured) + T(ambient) - 75DegF]. As
>the instrument reads T(sent) - [T(ambient) - 75DegF], indicated value should
>be T(mesured), as required. Can you see some solution that way?
>
>My instruments are UMA 1 1/4" Air Core, 270 degrees (very nice, indeed) and
>do need external power:
>EGT N12117K1K7F000
>CHT N12116U150C000
>Oil Temp N12113U150C000
This is a bit mystifying. Aircore meter movements require
externally powered electronics to convert an analog signal
into ratiometric, sine-cosine currents to drive the
meter movement. As long as one goes to the trouble to add
electronics, the idea of not going the final step to include
a cold-junction compensated TC amplifier chip is pretty
strange. The air-core driver doesn't have enough gain so
some kind of stable, DC pre-amp is needed too . . . they're
not saving much money by not taking advantage of the TC
specific amplifiers.
>I send you copy of the instruction sheets:
>One (Oil Temp) only says: "To be installed in an internal section of the
>aircraft"
>The other one (EGT, CHT) says: "Calibrated at a cold junction temperature of
>75 DegF, so actual reading depends...etc..)'
This really SOUNDS like they built in some kind of simple
gain to amplify the thermocouple signals and simply tweaked
the offset to make them read right at room temp. Sad.
Okay, what you COULD do is build an external signal conditioner
using the Analog Devices AD596/597 to provide the cold-junction
compensation and treat the instrument like a millivolt input
linear instrument.
See
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/664361174AD596_597_b.pdf
I keep pretty good quantities of this chip on hand. I use
them several times a year on various investigations.
There are some low cost, fast-turn etched circuit board
houses that supply free artwork layout programs. My personal
favorite is at http://expresspcb.com
I use these folks a LOT for one-of instrumentation and
low volume production projects at RAC and for my clients.
>For your information, UMA's answer to a question about TC extension:
>"You can use regular wire but you must use some type of connector. The
>thermo wire should be crimped to its connector, the extension can be
>soldered to its."
Nothing out of the ordinary here. For decades I was under
the illusion that TC wire could ONLY be soldered with
silver-solder and I speak to that process in the 'Connection.
In recent years, I've discovered that good (active) flux
tin-lead will solder them too. Takes a high temp (700 degree
iron) and some care to observe that tinning is actually
taking place. Once the tips are "tinned" you can solder them
into solder-cup connectors with ordinary techniques.
Of course, where ever you change from TC to copper conductors
establishes the cold junction. At Cessna in the 60's this
junction happened in a Thermos bottle filled with finely
crush distilled water and distilled-water ice.
I could sketch the circuit for you but I'll need to know
the input impedance of the instrument. If you have some
resistors, a variable bench supply and a digital voltmeter,
we can craft an experiment to characterize the instrument's
input.
Bob . . .
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Version 9.0 of CD is posted. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Version 9.0 to our Data CD has been posted at:
http://aeroelectric.com/CD
It's about twice the size of V8.0
Folks with high speed connections are certainly welcome
to download and distribute this work to locals as they
are able and see fit.
A test load from my cable modem took about 13 minutes
to get the whole thing.
Bob . . .
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:25:11 -0600
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 11:30 AM 12/10/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
> >
> >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
> >
> >Upper right, phenolic connector.
> >
> >Bruce
> >www.glasair.org
> >
> >
> >-----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: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
> >
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
> >
> >
> >I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
> >http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
> >http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
> >http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
> >Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
> >
> >I also found the following on the side of the connector:
> >"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
> >assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
>
> Do you have a 14 or 28 volt system? And if a 14v system,
> are you sure this isn't a 28 volt pitot tube? Pitot
> tubes with ceramic masts are very old devices. It may
> be salvaged off an old airplane. The part numbers
> you've cited remind me of drawing numbers for the
> Mistubishi Diamond which we purchased in late 70's
> and made it into the Beechjet.
>
> The connector Bruce cited will probably fit your
> tube. I'm not aware of any different sized connectors
> for this task. The tube's appearance and part numbers
> suggest that you may want to investigate whether or
> not you have a tube that is truly compatible with
> your system. The numbering system may be purely
> coincidental but I'd sure check the tube's current
> draw at 14v.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Thanks Bob,
It is a 14 volt system, and the plane has been flying since 1979. I
think before I plunk down $88 for a new connector, I will try a high
temp epoxy repair on this one. It would be nice to know I have the
correct voltage though.
What current draw should I expect putting 12 V on a 24 V unit? I'm a
little suspicious of the current ratings shown on the Spruce catalog
page. The 12 V one is shown pulling 10A and the 24V one 15A. OTOH, the
Falcon Pitot tubes on the same page are shown pulling 7A and 3.5A for
12V and 24V respectively and is said to be AN5812 compliant.
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 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/2005 10:40:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought airplane I
have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I use
it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will tell
immediately a deviation is happening before the altimeter announces I've
screwed up.
Good Evening Wayne,
Same here, I just wanted to point out that the regulations are not always
what intuition tells us they could or should be!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Do Not Archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Excuse me Wayne, I goofed!
I should have added a historical comment. The units you have been using are
almost certain to be IVSIs.
That stands for Instantaneous Vertical Speed Indicators.
The IVSI was an invention generally credited to an American Airlines Captain
whose name escapes me. He came up with the idea in the early fifties. The
VSI's we used before that time had so much lag that we were always told to be
sure and establish a steady state climb or descent before we evaluated the
rate! Maybe that has some bearing as to why the FAA doesn't have them listed
as
a piece of required equipment.
Instrumentation is a constantly evolving thing. That is one of the reasons
that I don't like it when the FAA, or anybody else, tries to force us into
standardizing what we need or how we use what we have. I agree that the
airlines and military have a need to use standardization. They are constantly
mixing
crews and flying different airplanes with different crews. However, I see
absolutely no reason why American Airlines needs to have the same instrument
panel layout that is used by Delta Airlines.
Diversity is good!
If one layout proves better than another considering the way things are
being used by any individual dual operator, we all gain new knowledge.
As I have said before: Standardization is the mortal enemy of innovation!
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 12/10/2005 10:40:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought airplane I
have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I use
it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will tell
immediately a deviation is happening before the altimeter announces I've
screwed up.
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Thanks for Crimper Help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net>
Thanks to Stein, Dick, and Bob for answering my question about crimpers. I now
see why I was confused. I was thinking about it in terms of crimping the terminal
with one side of the die and crimping the insulated wire with the other
side of the die.
Now I get it, thanks!
Dennis Johnson
do not archive
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
FWIW and not to be argumentative . . . the altimeter in "immediate" . . .
the VSI has a delay . . . having said that, I've got a BMA "Lite" and I'm
also installing a VSI.
Good Luck,
Bob Christensen
On 12/10/05, BobsV35B@aol.com <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Excuse me Wayne, I goofed!
>
>
> I should have added a historical comment. The units you have been using
> are
> almost certain to be IVSIs.
>
> That stands for Instantaneous Vertical Speed Indicators.
>
> The IVSI was an invention generally credited to an American
> Airlines Captain
> whose name escapes me. He came up with the idea in the early fifties. The
> VSI's we used before that time had so much lag that we were always told
> to be
> sure and establish a steady state climb or descent before we evaluated the
> rate! Maybe that has some bearing as to why the FAA doesn't have
> them listed as
> a piece of required equipment.
>
> Instrumentation is a constantly evolving thing. That is one of the reasons
> that I don't like it when the FAA, or anybody else, tries to force us into
> standardizing what we need or how we use what we have. I agree that the
> airlines and military have a need to use standardization. They are
> constantly mixing
> crews and flying different airplanes with different crews. However, I
> see
> absolutely no reason why American Airlines needs to have the
> same instrument
> panel layout that is used by Delta Airlines.
>
> Diversity is good!
>
> If one layout proves better than another considering the way things are
> being used by any individual dual operator, we all gain new knowledge.
>
> As I have said before: Standardization is the mortal enemy
> of innovation!
>
> 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 12/10/2005 10:40:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
>
> I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought airplane
> I
> have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I
> use
> it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will
> tell
>
> immediately a deviation is happening before the altimeter announces I've
> screwed up.
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
I meant "is immediate" . . . sorry for the typo.
On 12/10/05, Bob C. <flyboy.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW and not to be argumentative . . . the altimeter in "immediate" . . .
> the VSI has a delay . . . having said that, I've got a BMA "Lite" and I'm
> also installing a VSI.
>
> Good Luck,
> Bob Christensen
>
>
> On 12/10/05, BobsV35B@aol.com <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
> >
> >
> > Excuse me Wayne, I goofed!
> >
> >
> > I should have added a historical comment. The units you have been
> > using are
> > almost certain to be IVSIs.
> >
> > That stands for Instantaneous Vertical Speed Indicators.
> >
> > The IVSI was an invention generally credited to an American
> > Airlines Captain
> > whose name escapes me. He came up with the idea in the early
> > fifties. The
> > VSI's we used before that time had so much lag that we were always told
> > to be
> > sure and establish a steady state climb or descent before we evaluated
> > the
> > rate! Maybe that has some bearing as to why the FAA doesn't have
> > them listed as
> > a piece of required equipment.
> >
> > Instrumentation is a constantly evolving thing. That is one of the
> > reasons
> > that I don't like it when the FAA, or anybody else, tries to force us
> > into
> > standardizing what we need or how we use what we have. I agree that the
> > airlines and military have a need to use standardization. They are
> > constantly mixing
> > crews and flying different airplanes with different crews. However, I
> > see
> > absolutely no reason why American Airlines needs to have the
> > same instrument
> > panel layout that is used by Delta Airlines.
> >
> > Diversity is good!
> >
> > If one layout proves better than another considering the way things are
> > being used by any individual dual operator, we all gain new knowledge.
> >
> > As I have said before: Standardization is the mortal enemy
> > of innovation!
> >
> > 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 12/10/2005 10:40:07 A.M . Central Standard Time,
> > w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
> >
> > I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought
> > airplane I
> > have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I
> > use
> > it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will
> > tell
> >
> > immediately a deviation is happening before the altimeter announces I've
> > screwed up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/2005 8:46:25 P.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
FWIW and not to be argumentative . . . the altimeter in "immediate" . . .
the VSI has a delay . . . having said that, I've got a BMA "Lite" and I'm
also installing a VSI.
Good Luck,
Bob Christensen
Good Evening Bob,
Now I am really lost!
What are we discussing? I don't know whether we are being argumentative or
not!
I always hate to back away if we are.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit OptionsGlass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tammy Goff" <tngoff@houston.rr.com>
The VSI is not a required instrument. Nice to have but not required. George
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/09/2005 10:12:03 PM Central Standard Time,
Bruce@glasair.org writes:
Don't trust a pilot who regales you with his war
stories about how his skill got him out of all of his precarious situations.
>>>
MOST respectfully, I trust only ONE pilot when I'm PIC: ME. But I ALWAYS
listen to what other pilots have to say, whether I agree or not- especially those
with a lot more experience than mine (which is just about ALL of you!)
Mark Phillips - 380 hrs PIC and a student until I die... do not archive
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/2005 10:06:37 AM Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
If someone has a firewall mounted RG battery in an RV and
would be willing to go get some flight test data next summer,
I'll provide the data acquisition system and sensors to get the
numbers.
>>>
Well and good, but we hear 90% from the naysayers and precious little from
all others. Let's simplify the whole deal by taking a poll amongst all listers:
anyone with a firewall mounted RG battery in an RV who has used it through a
summer and had a problem or no problem with it, please indicate here:
Firewall mounted RG battery- Problem:
No Problem: Mark Phillips -6A/260 hrs/Panasonic 20Ah from Digikey changed @
1.5 yrs
OK, let's just take this simple exercise a bit farther:
OVM- Problem:
No Problem: Mark Phillips -6A/260 hrs/Bob's OVM
LVWM- Problem:
No Problem: Mark Phillips -6A/260 hrs/Bob's LVWM
Externally regulated alternator- Problem:
No Problem: B&C L-40/$10 generic Ford regulator
Enduring endless hyperbole here from obviously well-intentioned and
knowledgeable squeaky wheels that are listened to anyway- Problem:
No Problem:
Priceless: 8-)
And DO NOT ARCHIVE, Pulease!!!!!!!!!
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja@starpower.net>
I have temperature data in the firewall forward vicinity that might be
useful in a general sense for this discussion. My battery is
immediately aft of the seats but I installed 18 temperature sensors
during construction to assess what was happening in the vicinity of my
tightly cowled Lycoming 180 HP engine.
I have continued to collect data sporadically well beyond the initial 40
hours. With about 300 operating hours to date I have seen about all the
operating conditions that are probably to be encountered in the weather
conditions of the eastern half of the country where ambient temperatures
seldom reach much above the mid 90's.
The highest in-flight temperature behind the upper portion of the engine
accessory case has been 126F. This sensor is in the air space about half
way between the engine and the firewall. It is exposed to both the air
movement past it as well as the radiated heat from the engine. Near it
is my SD-8 PM alternator mounted on the vacuum pad drive. Its
temperature has never exceeded 196F as measured by a shielded, surface
contact sensor attached to the location on the alternator suggested by
B&C. This data was reported to B&C and they considered it to be well
within reason.
Another data point that indicates what the free air flow temperatures
are behind the engine shows a maximum of 184F in the exit air from the cowl.
There are higher temperatures in the forward engine areas such as at the
starter with a maximum of 198F due probably to the proximity of a
cross-over exhaust and heat muff assembly ahead of the oil sump.
Were a battery to be installed on the firewall, I would expect it to
never see any temperature higher than maybe 150F in similar
installations during normal operation. There is a rise in under-cowl
temperatures after shut down, but the mass of a battery should prevent
it from responding significantly before the under-cowl temperature drops
back to something lower than the in-flight levels.
I suspect that batteries see much more severe conditions in many
non-aircraft installations, and firewall mounted certified installations
operated in the southwest in the summer seem to survive under ambient
conditions well above 100F before even starting the engine.
Although this data can not represent all possible installations, I think
it may be useful as a ballpark indication of what can be expected as the
environment around a firewall mounted battery.
Jim
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
> Great question!!!! Is there anyone out there with a willingness
> to go find out? This thread could go on for weeks with lots of
> opinions and anecdotes stirred into the stew but with no conclusive
> data generated.
>
> I've often suggested that the 40-hour flyoff should include
> the kinds of investigations we do on production aircraft. Our
> #1 and #2 flight test articles are covered with various sensors
> and data recording systems which are used to confirm our design
> results.
>
> If someone has a firewall mounted RG battery in an RV and
> would be willing to go get some flight test data next summer,
> I'll provide the data acquisition system and sensors to get the
> numbers. It will take some time and effort. It won't be cheap
> as it involves installation flight testing of several hours
> and removal.
>
> But with such data in hand, we can co-author an article that
> will answer the questions that will make future threads on
> this topic little more than snippets referring the questioner
> to real data.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> At 09:34 AM 12/10/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
>><SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>>
>>Larry - yes, I have built a -9A and am building a -4. I have never thought
>>VANS' strong point is electrics and that is why I asked. I was hoping
>>someone would say they knew what temps the battery was enduring since it
>>ought to be a problem and appears not to be.
>>
>>Steve.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
>>><lhelming@sigecom.net>
>>>
>>>The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft. For
>>>their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine side
>>>of
>>>the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due
>>>mostly
>>>to W&B considerations.
>>>
>>>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
>>>
>>>"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility,
>>>and
>>>at your own risk."
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
>>>><SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>>>>
>>>>Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall.
>>>>It
>>>>must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
>>>>considerable.
>>>>
>>>>Comments? Steve.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|