---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 12/11/05: 35 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:16 AM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (Dan Checkoway) 2. 03:13 AM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (Steve Sampson) 3. 04:22 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com) 4. 04:47 AM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (LarryRobertHelming) 5. 05:54 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Bob C.) 6. 06:12 AM - Re: 24V starter on 14V system (Mark & Lisa) 7. 07:44 AM - Re: Pitot tube question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 08:41 AM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (J. Mcculley) 9. 08:50 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/10/05 (Lee Logan) 10. 09:14 AM - Re: Pitot tube question (Bob White) 11. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/10/05 (Ken) 12. 10:21 AM - Re: Re: 24V starter on 14V system (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 13. 10:55 AM - Re: Understanding Alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 14. 11:34 AM - Re: Re: 24V starter on 14V system (Richard E. Tasker) 15. 12:01 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Craig Payne) 16. 12:13 PM - Re: Re: 24V starter on 14V system (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 12:49 PM - Re: Pitot tube question (Craig Payne) 18. 12:57 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Craig Payne) 19. 01:22 PM - Re: Pitot tube question (Bob White) 20. 01:29 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 21. 01:49 PM - Re: Pitot tube question (Ken) 22. 02:29 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Craig Payne) 23. 03:15 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 24. 03:18 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Craig Payne) 25. 03:39 PM - Internally Regulated Alternator Update? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 26. 04:01 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 27. 04:17 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (LarryRobertHelming) 28. 05:18 PM - PC680 Life (Alex Peterson) 29. 05:31 PM - Re: Pitot tube question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 30. 06:04 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Folbrecht, Paul) 31. 06:21 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Craig Payne) 32. 07:07 PM - Re: PC680 Life (Earl_Schroeder) 33. 07:57 PM - Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture (DonVS) 34. 08:32 PM - Re: PC680 Life (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 35. 11:42 PM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Speedy11@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:16:33 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > 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: I'm among "all others." Van's RV-7 Odyssey PC680 on the firewall as per Van's FWF 720 hours on the hobbs 2 summers in the southwest, lots of heat abuse No problems with the battery. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:13:33 AM PST US From: "Steve Sampson" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" Jim - interesting data. You did not say what type of aircraft? Steve. ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Mcculley" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" > > > 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" >> >> >> >> 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" >>> >>> >>>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" >>>To: >>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt >>> >>> >>> >>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" >>>> >>>> >>>>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" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:22:04 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 12/11/2005 12:38:48 A.M. Central Standard Time, Fiveonepw@aol.com writes: Mark Phillips - 380 hrs PIC and a student until I die... do not archive Good Morning Mark, Very well said. A day we learn nothing is a day wasted may be an old platitude, but it works for me. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:47:55 AM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" I am using same format for reply as Mark Phillips: > Firewall mounted RG battery- Problem: > No Problem: Larry Helming RV7 76 hrs/Odyssey 680 new at first flight > > OK, let's just take this simple exercise a bit farther: > > OVM- Problem: > No Problem: Larry Helming RV7 76hrs/Bob's OVM > > LVWM- Problem: > No Problem: Larry Helming RV7 76hrs/Bob's LVWM > > Externally regulated alternator- Problem: > PROBLEM. Vans 35amp ER alt. failed at 60 hrs , replaced with rebuilt from AutoZone aviation > > Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and at your own risk." ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:54:09 AM PST US From: "Bob C. " Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " Sorry . . . I didn't read the whole thread and should have kept my mouth shut . . . I didn't read the IVSI part . . . I'm just a poor hairy legged boy from Iowa and have no experience with IVSIs . . . Sorry for the interruption . . . . Bob On 12/11/05, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > > In a message dated 12/11/2005 12:38:48 A.M. Central Standard Time, > Fiveonepw@aol.com writes: > > Mark Phillips - 380 hrs PIC and a student until I die... do not archive > > > Good Morning Mark, > > Very well said. > > A day we learn nothing is a day wasted may be an old platitude, but > it works > for me. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:12:54 AM PST US From: "Mark & Lisa" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: 24V starter on 14V system --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > 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 > Bob, Thanks again for the above starter system schematic. I think I've miscommunicated. I've already incorporated this starter sub-system into a Z-11 architecture the way I think it should (see the link to the my .DWG file). My problem is I'm not sure I did that correctly. As I see it (reference the schematic I uploaded), if I switch off the main DC pwr and switch on the e-bus alt feed (the procedure in the event of alternator failure, and the only way to get rid of contactor loads) then the electrical system receives power from the main battery only. Am I reading it wrong? Here's the link to my DWG file. http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/Main_Po wer_Dist.dwg I'd like to figure out a way to access both batteries when utilizing the e-bus. Thanks again for your help. Mark ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:44:35 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 05:11 PM 12/10/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White > >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:25:11 -0600 >"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > At 11:30 AM 12/10/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > >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. Deducing pitot heater characteristics on the bench is not difficult but it involves a bit more than simply hooking it up to a battery and measuring the current. Pitot heaters have a strikingly positive temperature coefficient. They also have widely variable abilities to move heat from the heater element to the surface of the tube where ice needs to be shed. I did an article last winter on techniques I've used to peer into the inner workings of a pitot tube from the outside. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Pitot_Heater/Gauging_Pitot_Heater_Performance.pdf For your investigation, I'd recommend you prepare a small coffee can with a mixture of water and crushed ice. Hook the tube up to a battery and measure both voltage and current through the tube while you stir the tube in the ice-bath. Measure voltage right at the tube's heater terminals. The tube should draw something on the order of 200 - 250 watts. If you have a 28v tube, running it on 14 volts will not produce nearly so high a number. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:41:10 AM PST US From: "J. Mcculley" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" Aircraft is a Wittman Tailwind. Jim Steve Sampson wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" > > Jim - interesting data. You did not say what type of aircraft? Steve. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. Mcculley" > To: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" >> >> >>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" >>> >>> >>> >>>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" >>>> >>>> >>>>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" >>>>To: >>>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>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" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:50:29 AM PST US From: Lee Logan Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/10/05 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lee Logan As a neophyte, I have greatly benefitted from the on-going discussions on the aeroelectric list--thanks for the useful inputs from all involved. As a "new guy" though, I missed the opening discussion on a topic that now seems relatively "mature". I need to go back to first principles----what is the basic objection to internally regulated alternators for OBAM applications? Are there any other "first principles" widely held by the aeroelectric list (and reasons why) that someone would be willing to summarize? I'm NOT trying to start an electronic flame war, just trying to catch up on the "received" wisdom of this Forum. A review once in awhile might be useful, especially if done by one of more of the guys who've been on the Forum from the beginning. Thanks and regards, Lee... ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:14:00 AM PST US From: Bob White Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:43:21 -0600 "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > At 05:11 PM 12/10/2005 -0700, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White > > > >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:25:11 -0600 > >"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > > > > At 11:30 AM 12/10/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" > > > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > Deducing pitot heater characteristics on the bench is > not difficult but it involves a bit more than simply hooking > it up to a battery and measuring the current. Pitot heaters > have a strikingly positive temperature coefficient. They also > have widely variable abilities to move heat from the heater > element to the surface of the tube where ice needs to be > shed. > > I did an article last winter on techniques I've used to > peer into the inner workings of a pitot tube from the outside. > See: > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Pitot_Heater/Gauging_Pitot_Heater_Performance.pdf > > For your investigation, I'd recommend you prepare a small > coffee can with a mixture of water and crushed ice. Hook the > tube up to a battery and measure both voltage and current > through the tube while you stir the tube in the ice-bath. > > Measure voltage right at the tube's heater terminals. > > The tube should draw something on the order of 200 - 250 > watts. If you have a 28v tube, running it on 14 volts will > not produce nearly so high a number. > > Bob . . . > > Thanks, I will check it as you have suggested. Bob W. do not archive -- 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 11 ____________________________________ Time: 10:04:06 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/10/05 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken Lee are you sure you don't just want somebody to be a lightening rod.... ;) With an external voltage regulator you can shutoff power to the field (manually or automatically with overvoltage protection circuitry) and shutdown the alternator 99.9999999% guaranteed. Some internal regulated alternator can also be shutdown by disconnecting the small Ignition wire. But that doesn't work with all alternators and some of us feel that there is no guarantee that this would still work anyway if the regulator has failed and the alternator is producing maximum output. Some folks feel that doesn't matter as they claim there is almost no chance that a modern internally regulated alternator will fail in such a manner that it is producing maximun output. They may be right but nevertheless some folks who don't subscribe to that theory (they may have serious $$ in avionics or an electrically dependant engine) like to add a large contactor that will disconnect the output from the alternator in the event of an overvoltage event. This leads to two issues. 1. choosing a contactor that is up to the task and 2. If someone switches off this contactor inadvertantly while the alternator is producing power - it has in some cases damaged the alternator. Standby for more from Bob's research as he is the only one that has offered any actual test data or concrete numbers as far as I can recall. Ken Lee Logan wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lee Logan > >As a neophyte, I have greatly benefitted from the on-going discussions on >the aeroelectric list--thanks for the useful inputs from all involved. As a >"new guy" though, I missed the opening discussion on a topic that now seems >relatively "mature". I need to go back to first principles----what is the >basic objection to internally regulated alternators for OBAM applications? > >Are there any other "first principles" widely held by the aeroelectric list >(and reasons why) that someone would be willing to summarize? I'm NOT >trying to start an electronic flame war, just trying to catch up on the >"received" wisdom of this Forum. A review once in awhile might be useful, >especially if done by one of more of the guys who've been on the Forum from >the beginning. > >Thanks and regards, Lee... > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 10:21:23 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: 24V starter on 14V system --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >Thanks again for the above starter system schematic. I think I've >miscommunicated. I've already incorporated this starter sub-system into a >Z-11 architecture the way I think it should (see the link to the my .DWG >file). My problem is I'm not sure I did that correctly. As I see it >(reference the schematic I uploaded), if I switch off the main DC pwr and >switch on the e-bus alt feed (the procedure in the event of alternator >failure, and the only way to get rid of contactor loads) then the electrical >system receives power from the main battery only. Am I reading it wrong? >Here's the link to my DWG file. > >http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/Main_Po >wer_Dist.dwg the photoshare feature on matronics didn't handle the .dwg file well. My computer didn't know how to open it properly. Can you email it directly to me as an attachment? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:55:09 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Understanding Alternators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:45 AM 12/11/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lee Logan > >As a neophyte, I have greatly benefitted from the on-going discussions on >the aeroelectric list--thanks for the useful inputs from all involved. As a >"new guy" though, I missed the opening discussion on a topic that now seems >relatively "mature". I need to go back to first principles----what is the >basic objection to internally regulated alternators for OBAM applications? > >Are there any other "first principles" widely held by the aeroelectric list >(and reasons why) that someone would be willing to summarize? I'm NOT >trying to start an electronic flame war, just trying to catch up on the >"received" wisdom of this Forum. A review once in awhile might be useful, >especially if done by one of more of the guys who've been on the Forum from >the beginning. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternator_Failures.pdf and watch for an expansion of the documents started at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/alternators/UA/Alternators_1.html Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:34:20 AM PST US From: "Richard E. Tasker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: 24V starter on 14V system --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" Mine really didn't handle it properly either (a screen full of letters and numbers, etc.), but all I did was save the email and it saved a perfectly fine copy of the drawing file. With Mozilla all you do is right click and choose "save page as". You do have to reconstruct the link if it wrapped... YMMV Dick Tasker Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > >>Thanks again for the above starter system schematic. I think I've >>miscommunicated. I've already incorporated this starter sub-system into a >>Z-11 architecture the way I think it should (see the link to the my .DWG >>file). My problem is I'm not sure I did that correctly. As I see it >>(reference the schematic I uploaded), if I switch off the main DC pwr and >>switch on the e-bus alt feed (the procedure in the event of alternator >>failure, and the only way to get rid of contactor loads) then the electrical >>system receives power from the main battery only. Am I reading it wrong? >>Here's the link to my DWG file. >> >>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/Main_Po >>wer_Dist.dwg >> >> > > > the photoshare feature on matronics didn't handle the .dwg file > well. My computer didn't know how to open it properly. Can you > email it directly to me as an attachment? > > Bob . . . > > -- Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however, that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced. -- ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 12:01:37 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no known source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper. True or not? -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" --> At 11:04 PM 12/9/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" > > >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" > >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 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:13:35 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: 24V starter on 14V system --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >Bob, > >Thanks again for the above starter system schematic. I think I've >miscommunicated. I've already incorporated this starter sub-system into a >Z-11 architecture the way I think it should (see the link to the my .DWG >file). My problem is I'm not sure I did that correctly. As I see it >(reference the schematic I uploaded), if I switch off the main DC pwr and >switch on the e-bus alt feed (the procedure in the event of alternator >failure, and the only way to get rid of contactor loads) then the electrical >system receives power from the main battery only. Am I reading it wrong? >Here's the link to my DWG file. > >http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/Main_Po >wer_Dist.dwg > >I'd like to figure out a way to access both batteries when utilizing the >e-bus. > >Thanks again for your help. Thanks to Mr. Tasker, I was prompted to try a different browser that would let me "save" the link as opposed to attempting to "open" it. First, I note that you've left off the ANL limiters called out in the original drawing. It's important that these be present so that no combination of stuck contactors can cause a battery to see a hard fault. Worked an MU-2 in-flight fire accident that began with just such an incident. They series two 24v batteries for a 48v starter and stuck contactors very nearly cost passengers and crew their lives. What size batteries are you planning? If a pair of 17 a.h. then may I suggest that getting both batteries to drive the e-bus adds complexity you'll probably never need? Get the e-bus loads down to a minimum . . . when and if main battery looks like it won't make it (I should if you've done your e-bus operations homework) then re-close normal ops battery contactors to bring the aux battery back to finish up the job . . . and in any case, close the normal ops contactors once the airport is in sight so that you have every watt-second on board available for approach to landing. I'd recommend staying with the 2-10 battery/alternator switch so that there's always a battery on line to stabilize the alternator. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 12:49:42 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" >> phenolic I thought his connector was ceramic. How hot does the pitot tube get at the wing and will a phenolic-one hold up? Yes, I see that they are using it on newer heated pitots. Just a little concerned. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" --> 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 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" wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:57:14 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" Based on the Sport Pilot oral exam I took today (and sorta passed) I can say that neither a VSI or a turn coordinator are required for *VFR* flight. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Sweet Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" --> ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 19 ____________________________________ Time: 01:22:21 PM PST US From: Bob White Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White Hi Craig, It looks like ceramic to me, but the previous owner had repaired it by securing the top and bottom broken pieces with nylon tiewraps so I don't think it gets hot enough that phenolic would be a problem. In fact, I could make one out of phenolic pretty easily. If I don't have any luck with epoxy, I might try that. Bob W. On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:46:02 -0700 "Craig Payne" wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > >> phenolic > > I thought his connector was ceramic. How hot does the pitot tube get at the > wing and will a phenolic-one hold up? Yes, I see that they are using it on > newer heated pitots. Just a little concerned. > > -- Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce > Gray > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" > --> > > 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 > > > 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" wrote: > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > > > > 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 > > > > I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin > > connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material, > > that > is > > broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a > > replacement connector. I don't know what brand it is. > > > > Thanks, > > Bob W. > > > > -- > http://www.bob-white.com > N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week) > Custom Cables for your rotary installation - > http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ > > > > > > > > -- http://www.bob-white.com N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week) Custom Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 01:29:50 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:57 PM 12/11/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > >So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no known >source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper. True or not? > >-- Craig Gee . . . I hope my words didn't seem to imply that at all. There are LOTS of terminal/tool/wire combinations that will produce satisfactory terminations for your airplane. The "trick" is do deduce the combination . . . and for most of you, to get the right combination without having to research all the "Tinker- Toys" in the box. If B&C is selling the same tool I sold them some years go and you use AMP PIDG terminals from B&C or anyone else, that combination WILL provide satisfactory terminal installations on Tefzel wire. This is EXACTLY the thrust of the article at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html The notion delivered here was that the $40 tool illustrated was a satisfactory substitute for the $600 tool also illustrated. To save the research time, buy a tool from somebody like Steinair or B&C where there's a good chance that they've done the research for you. Even so, it's a good thing to buy some extra terminals, crimp them on various pieces of wire and do the pull tests and physical examinations described in the articles. If the tool doesn't do what you need, both of these folks are intently interested in knowing about it and making it right with you. Our friend Phil purchased a perfectly good AMP tool that will NOT properly install PIDG terminals on Tefzel wire. It's all in the dies - not all dies install all terminals as I showed in: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg where perfectly qualifiable, PIDG style terminals from another manufacturer looked like crap when installed with the $40 tool. All these exercises suggest there is no substitute for understanding what the tool is supposed to accomplish and having the curiosity to determine if your purchase fulfills those goals. I can put perfectly good crimps on a PIDG terminal with a $10 hardware store tool -OR- my $600 t-head tool. You only need to understand how each tool performs and take the time to learn how it is used - or as cited in Phil's case above above, how it cannot be used. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 01:49:38 PM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken FWIW my used single engine cessna pitot quickly stabilized at about 7 amps in free room temperature air on a 12 volt battery. I can't remember whether the heater was marked 12 volts but 7 amps sounded reasonble to me. I'm assuming a low speed aircraft without other ice protection simply doesn't need 200+ watts to operate in snow or an occasional cloud breaking procedure. It was interesting to note that the unit actually has a small water drain hole incorporated at the point where the air passage turns up vertical. Ken >>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. >> >> > > Deducing pitot heater characteristics on the bench is > not difficult but it involves a bit more than simply hooking > it up to a battery and measuring the current. Pitot heaters > have a strikingly positive temperature coefficient. They also > have widely variable abilities to move heat from the heater > element to the surface of the tube where ice needs to be > shed. > > I did an article last winter on techniques I've used to > peer into the inner workings of a pitot tube from the outside. > See: > >http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Pitot_Heater/Gauging_Pitot_Heater_Performance.pdf > > For your investigation, I'd recommend you prepare a small > coffee can with a mixture of water and crushed ice. Hook the > tube up to a battery and measure both voltage and current > through the tube while you stir the tube in the ice-bath. > > Measure voltage right at the tube's heater terminals. > > The tube should draw something on the order of 200 - 250 > watts. If you have a 28v tube, running it on 14 volts will > not produce nearly so high a number. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 02:29:59 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" OK, I am away from home but will take a close look when I get home. I actually have two crimping tools: one from B&C and another from Stein Air. From a superficial glance they appear to be the same tool. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" --> At 12:57 PM 12/11/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > >So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no >known source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper. True or not? > >-- Craig Gee . . . I hope my words didn't seem to imply that at all. There are LOTS of terminal/tool/wire combinations that will produce satisfactory terminations for your airplane. The "trick" is do deduce the combination . . . and for most of you, to get the right combination without having to research all the "Tinker- Toys" in the box. If B&C is selling the same tool I sold them some years go and you use AMP PIDG terminals from B&C or anyone else, that combination WILL provide satisfactory terminal installations on Tefzel wire. This is EXACTLY the thrust of the article at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html The notion delivered here was that the $40 tool illustrated was a satisfactory substitute for the $600 tool also illustrated. To save the research time, buy a tool from somebody like Steinair or B&C where there's a good chance that they've done the research for you. Even so, it's a good thing to buy some extra terminals, crimp them on various pieces of wire and do the pull tests and physical examinations described in the articles. If the tool doesn't do what you need, both of these folks are intently interested in knowing about it and making it right with you. Our friend Phil purchased a perfectly good AMP tool that will NOT properly install PIDG terminals on Tefzel wire. It's all in the dies - not all dies install all terminals as I showed in: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg where perfectly qualifiable, PIDG style terminals from another manufacturer looked like crap when installed with the $40 tool. All these exercises suggest there is no substitute for understanding what the tool is supposed to accomplish and having the curiosity to determine if your purchase fulfills those goals. I can put perfectly good crimps on a PIDG terminal with a $10 hardware store tool -OR- my $600 t-head tool. You only need to understand how each tool performs and take the time to learn how it is used - or as cited in Phil's case above above, how it cannot be used. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:32 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:26 PM 12/11/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > >OK, I am away from home but will take a close look when I get home. I >actually have two crimping tools: one from B&C and another from Stein Air. > From a superficial glance they appear to be the same tool. > >-- Craig I suspect they are. That particular tool has a huge following in the wild . . . it's made by at least 4 different manufacturers I know of . . . all of them in Taiwan. I'd tried to locate a source closer to the manufacturer to see if I could bring these tools to the OBAM market at a better price. The answer was, you betcha! All I had to do was pop for 10-20 thousand tools and I could get them really cheap! Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 03:18:46 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" Gee . . . I hope my words didn't seem to imply that at all. There are LOTS of terminal/tool/wire combinations that will produce satisfactory terminations for your airplane. The "trick" is do deduce the combination . . . and for most of you, to get the right combination without having to research all the "Tinker- Toys" in the box. If B&C is selling the same tool I sold them some years go and you use AMP PIDG terminals from B&C or anyone else, that combination WILL provide satisfactory terminal installations on Tefzel wire. This is EXACTLY the thrust of the article at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html I guess what is confusing is reconciling the quote from 2004 below with the analysis in the article at the above link: 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. I read this as saying that the was *some* tool from B&C that you decided you couldn't recommend. But the linked article describes a tool (possibly from B&C) that was acceptable. Again I am away from home and can't examine the crimp tools I have. -- Craig ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 03:39:34 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >Bob, > >Any recent updates on the "internally regulated alternator"? > >I know that you were not recommending it's use on an "all electric >airplane with dual electronic ignition", which is the configuration of the >plane I am building. Not at all. The modern internally regulated alternator is a great piece of hardware that offers excellent value over most 60's certified alternators flying today. Your choice of alternators has nothing to do with whether or not you have electronic ignition, EFIS, or any other modern feature. Depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose, you may not have 100%, absolute control over it's output which does not satisfy traditional design goals. Further, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose, you may not be able to add a convenient form of OV protection which is also a traditional design goal. Finally, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose, the act of turning it on and OFF at inopportune times may damage the alternator's regulator. Having offered this, there are thousands of OBAM aircraft flying wherein the builder has not included these points in satisfaction of his own design goals either because he has considered them insignificant or doesn't understand them well enough to make a well considered decision. None-the-less, a vast majority of these aircraft ARE flying trouble free. However, from time to time, we're made aware of installations where the builder wishes he had considered and adopted the traditional design goals. It's a small percentage to be sure . . . but then catastrophic runaway failures in the certified ships also constitutes a small percentage of all failures. Bottom line is that we will be able to offer a means by which any internally regulated alternator can be integrated into your airplane under the traditional design goals. In the mean time, drive on with whatever installation instructions come with your alternator of choice knowing that modifying the system will be easy and inexpensive at a later time. I've been trying to get the next few pages of "Understanding Alternators" http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/alternators/UA/Alternators_1.html published but things are really busy around here this time of year. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 04:01:27 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >I guess what is confusing is reconciling the quote from 2004 below with the >analysis in the article at the above link: > > > 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. > > >I read this as saying that the was *some* tool from B&C that you decided you >couldn't recommend. But the linked article describes a tool (possibly from >B&C) that was acceptable. Again I am away from home and can't examine the >crimp tools I have. B&C tried another tool supplier some time back and it did stir up a bit of a kerfuffle because folks noted that it didn't seem to put the PIDG terminals on right. I got a sample tool from B&C and confirmed the problem which was written up in the thread you cited. B&C has long since corrected the deficiency. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 04:17:16 PM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" not true. Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and at your own risk." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > > So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no > known > source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper. True or not? > > -- Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert > L. > Nuckolls, III > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > --> > > At 11:04 PM 12/9/2005 -0500, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" >> >> >>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" >> >>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 28 ____________________________________ Time: 05:18:25 PM PST US From: "Alex Peterson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: PC680 Life --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680 batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325 hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts. Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 698 hours Maple Grove, MN ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 05:31:06 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 04:46 PM 12/11/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken > >FWIW my used single engine cessna pitot quickly stabilized at about 7 >amps in free room temperature air on a 12 volt battery. I can't remember >whether the heater was marked 12 volts but 7 amps sounded reasonble to >me. I'm assuming a low speed aircraft without other ice protection >simply doesn't need 200+ watts to operate in snow or an occasional cloud >breaking procedure. It was interesting to note that the unit actually >has a small water drain hole incorporated at the point where the air >passage turns up vertical. >Ken Actually, the free air bench test is at one extreme end of the tube's operating curve. On page 2 of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Pitot_Heater/Gauging_Pitot_Heater_Performance.pdf we note that the free air bench test for the AN5814-1 settles out at about 9A for a power dissipation of 117 watts. However, the tube never operates there. On your airplane, there's always ambient slip stream which takes heat out of the tube and lowers it's resistance. Therefore, except while sitting on the ground, you'll never see running currents below 9A with this particular tube. Further down the curve we see an ice-bath current draw of 16A for a total of 208 Watts. This is the other extreme for operation which you'll never see . . . for very long. If your airplane is picking up ice fast enough to drive the pitot tube down to this resistance level, you have only minutes to stay airborne anyhow and de-icing the pitot tube is the last of your concerns. Some data I gathered on a batch of 28V pitot tubes shows a similar loading in an ice-bath. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Pitot_Heat_R_Raw_Data.pdf and averaged at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Pitot_Heater_R_Plot.pdf Here all 5 samples were close to 250 watts in the ice bath and they too dropped to the 100 watt neighborhood in free air. These data were the foundation for my suggestion that the pitot tube in question should draw something in the 200w range in stirred ice when operated at its rated voltage. Virtually all the pitot tubes I've worked with have on or more drain holes. In fact, location of the drain holes can be critical to tube performance in the icing test tunnel. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:25 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options From: "Folbrecht, Paul" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Folbrecht, Paul" Congrats on sorta passing. Can you legally sorta fly an LSA now? -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Craig Payne Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" Based on the Sport Pilot oral exam I took today (and sorta passed) I can say that neither a VSI or a turn coordinator are required for *VFR* flight. -- Craig ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 06:21:11 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" Hopefully I will drop the "sorta" from the oral part on Tuesday and do well on the check-ride that same day. After that (and after I finishing mating my Zenith 601XL with its Corvair engine) I can really start learning how to fly. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Folbrecht, Paul Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Folbrecht, Paul" --> Congrats on sorta passing. Can you legally sorta fly an LSA now? -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Craig Payne Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" --> Based on the Sport Pilot oral exam I took today (and sorta passed) I can say that neither a VSI or a turn coordinator are required for *VFR* flight. -- Craig ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 07:07:04 PM PST US From: Earl_Schroeder Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PC680 Life --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder Alex Peterson wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > >What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680 >batteries? > > My PC680 is about a year old and still works fine. Bob says I don't need to connect a 'battery tender' in the hangar but I always do... band aid approach. Earl Do not archive.. ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:34 PM PST US From: "DonVS" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" Bob, I have a couple questions on the Z13 setup. If I run a battery buss with: two P-mags, my primary EFIS, one nav/com, the transponder and the audio panel is there any benefit to having an E-buss? Except for the audio panel the entire collection is independently switched. Everything else in the electrical system is on the "main" buss. Is this a robust system or am I missing something? Operation would be , alt fails and low voltage light comes on, switch alt and battery off (one 799-2-10 switch), continue for the exact same duration as with an E-buss??. I might also add an SD8 witch will extend the duration. Please help me understand what is wrong with this design if it is not a smart or feasible plan. Thanks in advance. Don ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 08:32:51 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PC680 Life --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:14 PM 12/11/2005 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > > >What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680 >batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the >aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding >to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325 >hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts. Do you have a means for cap-checking the battery? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 11:42:50 PM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com Bob, Thanks for your response. The original post did reference using an ammeter but the thread got diverted along the way. So, it appears that I accomplish the most with the least by simply inserting 22AWG wires in with my wire bundles and access them as needed to take necessary readings. That makes perfect sense to me and it is the approach I will take. Thanks for the advice. Stan Sutterfield In a message dated 12/06/05 3:00:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: I can see how you could perceive my answer as a run-around. Allow me to clarify. The most I can recommend now is to install a system not unlike that which I've illustrated and NO sensors. When and if a problem arises in any system where you'd like some remote measurement abilities, then the wires and connector will be in place. You'll need a test jack box and a voltmeter to plug into your cabin mounted test connector. You may even want to add some spare wires so that hall effect or temperature SENSORS might be added at test-time. I've suggested the test connector and simple harness with plenty of wires in it because it's easy and inexpensive to install while the airplane is being built. The existence of this connector makes future testing much easier because you can add stuff as needed to attack the problem at hand. Going beyond that now assumes a lot we don't know until some problem arises.