Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:50 AM - Re: Re: Jon's Kitfox/912S (ivorphillips)
2. 04:27 AM - Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations ()
3. 06:17 AM - Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations (Bill Denton)
4. 07:36 AM - Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations (Larry McFarland)
5. 08:54 AM - Re: Good "no nick" wire stripper? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:10 AM - Alternative architectures (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:13 AM - Re: TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 10:15 AM - Good "no nick" wire stripper? ()
9. 11:26 AM - two connections to ECU (engine computer) (Mickey Coggins)
10. 11:44 AM - Re: Good "no nick" wire stripper? (Gaylen Lerohl)
11. 01:19 PM - Re: TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? (Brian Lloyd)
12. 01:24 PM - Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) (Ken)
13. 02:34 PM - Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) (Mickey Coggins)
14. 02:48 PM - Re: Alternative architectures (sportav8r@aol.com)
15. 04:17 PM - TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Jon's Kitfox/912S |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "ivorphillips" <ivor@ivorphillips.flyer.co.uk>
If you have the space! you can fit the alternator directly to the flywheel
hub, The 40 amp Nippon denso alternator 129423-77200 fits nicely between
the Rotax ring mount, Using a shear coupling and a fabricated mount it will
spin near to its optimum speed with no side loading on the bearings,
It also puts the 6 Ibs further back with shorter cable runs,
regards
Ivor phillips
Europa 914
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Goguen" <jon.goguen@umassmed.edu>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jon's Kitfox/912S
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jon Goguen
> <jon.goguen@umassmed.edu>
>
> We have a little (6 lbs, 40 amps) new manufacture internally regulated
> Nippon Denso that cost $115 from a local supplier. I don't have the
> part # in my office (were I still am, unfortunately), but can get it to
> you later. We will probably go with the internal regulator rather than
> converting for external regulation, which would not be very diffiicult
> if desired. Now comes the complex part. The Rotax external alternator
> drive kit won't fit under the cowl. Rather than modify the cowl, we
> designed a drive to work from the vacuum pump pad. Coupling the
> alternator directly to the vacuum pump drive internal spline doesn't
> give high enough rpm. This is why the SD20 from B&C gives only 13 amps
> or so on a 912S. Our system mounts a pulley on the pad and drives the
> alternator with a belt to increase the rpm. The parts are currently in
> process at a local machine shop. I will post pictures and let folks
> now how well it works when we get it up and running. Using the Rotax
> external drive would be much easier if it fits in your ship. It might
> have been easier to modify the cowl in our case, but momentum for the
> vacuum pad solution got hold of us.
>
> Jon
>
> Jon Goguen
> jon.goguen@umassmed.edu
> Central Massachusetts
> Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
> Complete except for electrics and avionics
>
> "Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
> --Woody Allen
> On Dec 16, 2005, at 10:19 PM, JTORTHO@aol.com wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: JTORTHO@aol.com
>>
>> Jon
>> You have stated my feelings exactly. My project is a searey, another
>> less
>> then ideal IFR platform, but I would like the security of the right
>> tools to get
>> home safely.
>>
>> Also using a 912s with the same load demands. So which alternator are
>> you
>> using?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by:
NYTerminat@aol.com
<<Listers I have a quick question on the certification of the transponder/
encoder.
Does this have to be done before you can get a DAR or FAA sign off on your
experimental? Does the original certification of the new equipment count
initially?
If not how does one get the plane to an airport that have an avionics shop
without first flying? Thanks Bob Spudis>>
12/17/2005
Hello Bob, Good Questions.
<<1) Does this have to be done before you can get a DAR or FAA sign off on
your
experimental?>>
No, for two reasons: A) The inspector is basically inspecting your plane for
day VFR airworthiness. (He has no formal FAA requirement beyond this
capability). B) There are places / airspace where you can fly VFR with no
transponder. See FAR 91.215 (b). Your Phase one test area could be one of
these places as could your subsequent Phase two operations. (But Phase two
operations without a transponder could be very limiting).**
<<2) If not how does one get the plane to an airport that have an avionics
shop
without first flying?>>
FAR 91.215 (d) allows such deviations from the basic requirement rule. Many
shops have mobile test equipment and they can drive to your airport. For an
IFR cert I suggest that you remove and take both the altimeter and encoder
to their shop first for bench testing and calibration and then reinstall
them before having the mobile test equipment come to your airplane.
<<3) Does the original certification of the new equipment count initially?
Not really. Because in practice the installation itself is being tested. See
FAR Part 91.217 (b).
I suggest that a reading of FAR 91.215, 91.217, 91.411, 91.413 and
Appendices E and F of FAR Part 43 would help. It is a bit of a struggle to
read those parts and their relaionship. All are available on the FAA web
site.
OC
**PS: There is another reason also. Suppose you get your VFR or IFR cert
first, the plane doesn't pass the initial airworthiness inspection, and
there is delay before actually passing the inspection. Then all the time
between the date of cert and the eventual passed inspection and first flight
is a wasted portion of the two year period of the cert.
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: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
I have a question...
If you are using an EFIS, with a built-in encoder, how is this type of
checking done?
It would be a real pain having to remove an EFIS every time the check was
needed...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by:
NYTerminat@aol.com
<<Listers I have a quick question on the certification of the transponder/
encoder.
Does this have to be done before you can get a DAR or FAA sign off on your
experimental? Does the original certification of the new equipment count
initially?
If not how does one get the plane to an airport that have an avionics shop
without first flying? Thanks Bob Spudis>>
12/17/2005
Hello Bob, Good Questions.
<<1) Does this have to be done before you can get a DAR or FAA sign off on
your
experimental?>>
No, for two reasons: A) The inspector is basically inspecting your plane for
day VFR airworthiness. (He has no formal FAA requirement beyond this
capability). B) There are places / airspace where you can fly VFR with no
transponder. See FAR 91.215 (b). Your Phase one test area could be one of
these places as could your subsequent Phase two operations. (But Phase two
operations without a transponder could be very limiting).**
<<2) If not how does one get the plane to an airport that have an avionics
shop
without first flying?>>
FAR 91.215 (d) allows such deviations from the basic requirement rule. Many
shops have mobile test equipment and they can drive to your airport. For an
IFR cert I suggest that you remove and take both the altimeter and encoder
to their shop first for bench testing and calibration and then reinstall
them before having the mobile test equipment come to your airplane.
<<3) Does the original certification of the new equipment count initially?
Not really. Because in practice the installation itself is being tested. See
FAR Part 91.217 (b).
I suggest that a reading of FAR 91.215, 91.217, 91.411, 91.413 and
Appendices E and F of FAR Part 43 would help. It is a bit of a struggle to
read those parts and their relaionship. All are available on the FAA web
site.
OC
**PS: There is another reason also. Suppose you get your VFR or IFR cert
first, the plane doesn't pass the initial airworthiness inspection, and
there is delay before actually passing the inspection. Then all the time
between the date of cert and the eventual passed inspection and first flight
is a wasted portion of the two year period of the cert.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Bill,
This is the way I experienced this test requirement. I should mention
that I also have a removable forward top skin
which made the initial test much easier to accomplish because we found
leaking fittings at the gages (not tight).
Only the first certification test hook ups are made at the encoder and
then the altimeter to verify each for accuracy.
The hook up then moved to the lines between your pitot and gages, in my
case at the wing joint. The first test is required
to take readings up to 21000 feet. The lines at my wing joint were
modified to add T joint connectors for the next recertification
2 years later. The second time the system is hooked up, only the Tee'd
lines are tested to 10,000 feet and the gages are
not individually connected to re-check against one another. This test
was completed before going for the Airworthiness Cert.
The altimeter will have a sticker on it and the mode S Code number of
your signal will be entered into the FAA registry.
Only a certified shop can do this. There are ways seen on the Internet
that you can set up and check it but it's not be wise to
try to slip under the wire and do the test yourself. I don't think the
insurance companies would like it either.
As far as getting into an airport without transponder/encoder, you only
need to call the tower 30 minutes ahead and
request a clearance to enter C space and most of the time, they will be
accomodating to radio only entry.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
Bill Denton wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>I have a question...
>
>If you are using an EFIS, with a built-in encoder, how is this type of
>checking done?
>
>It would be a real pain having to remove an EFIS every time the check was
>needed...
>
>
>
>
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: Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:47 PM 12/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
>where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
>ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
>use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
>location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
Wire strippers with sculptured blades like those illustrated in
the comic book cited above are relatively rare as catalog items.
This is mostly because sculptured strippers need to be closely
matched to the wire/insulation combination. For example, Boeing
used a lot of Kapton insulated wire (VERY thin insulation) and
at one time there were probably 1000 or more strippers in the
Washington plant with sculptured blades tailored to Kapton.
I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I found dozens of
sculptured blade strippers in the Boeing surplus store in Seattle
for a couple of dollars each (broken handles, etc). The blades
(expensive) can be salvaged and installed in new handles (cheap)
for a tiny fraction of new price. On closer examination, the
blades would obviously not work on 22759/16 Tefzel. I did not
walk out of the store with a bag full of scrap strippers.
Given the relative rarity and variability of requirements
for such tools along with their expense suppliers are reluctant
to list them as general catalog items. Allied stocks a
Teflon EE (works pretty good on Tefzel) stripper at
http://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=1637.pdf
See stock #988-4587
A Google search on "stripmaster" and "45-187" will
get you a bunch of hits on this tool . . . which is not
the only one out there because the blades come in a
variety of combinations which will change the model
number of the stripper.
>I know Bob doesn't like those strippers in the first photograph of that
> article . . . .
Not at all. I have several pairs. The sharp-blade strippers
are used around here a lot. It's not a matter of liking
or disliking a particular tool so much as a task of
matching skill and tool to a particular task. For example:
One of my sharp edged strippers does a really slick
job of preparing the end of a shielded wire to accept
a solder sleeve and terminating pins. Three quick strips
and outer insulation, braid, and inner insulation
are neatly removed thus preparing the wire for termination.
>And what if it looks different and costs something in-between?
> http://www.hmcelectronics.com/cgi-bin/scripts/product/6800-0025/
This tool operates on an entirely different principal than
the fixed die tools I illustrated in the comic book. There
are as many stripper technologies and styles as there are
starry-eyed entrepreneurs hoping to retire on the sales
of the 'ultimate' stripper.
The real class-act tools for Tefzel stripping are
limited to fixed die devices like those previously
illustrated. There are wanna-be's of various capability
some of which have been described here on the List
with favorable reports.
>That's still not a true "mil spec" die type stripper. Anytime you see the
>Words "self adjusting" you can guarantee a certain lack of detailed
>accuracy.
Right ON! Any wire working tool worth it's salt has
hard stops, hard dies, and mechanisms that encourage full-
cycle operation whether you're stripping wire or installing
terminals. Those 'hard' features provide operation-to-operation
consistency that a craftsman seeks.
>That being said, I'm not saying you have to buy the die type strippers at
>all, because personally I don't think thats the case (although I'll probably
>be chastised for that). I do however think a good set of strippers can be
>used that costs a whole lot less than the high buck ones...even the middle
>of the line Ideal or AMP brand stripmasters (which have interchangeable dies
>including the compression die type for the same frame). . . .
Exactly. That was the purpose of the comic book I published.
It was not intended to promote or discourage ANY tool for ANY
purpose used by ANY craftsman. The goal is to understand the
end result desired and then match skills and tool to the
task.
I strip Tefzel and Spec 55 wire with a pair of flush-cutters.
In my seminars, I'll SHOW folks the $high$ strippers but
when they all get a chance to install some terminals and pins
on wires, I only circulate the flush-cutters. By the time the
program is over, attendees have accomplished a number of
stripping operations on Tefzel wire and are armed with the
knowledge needed to hone their own skills to the task.
I use the more automated tools when I have a lot of repeating
activities where monotony and fatigue combine to drive down
consistency. If I'm going to install a couple of 25-pin d-subs,
out come the cool strippers. If I'm just putting a couple of
terminals or pins on a wire, the flush-cutters get the job
done in 1/2 the time it takes to walk to the toolbox and
get out the Cadillac tools.
The comic book is more about studying various means to
end results than about tool selection.
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: | Alternative architectures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>I'm planning a complete re-do of my RV electrical system to
>comply with Z-13/8 architecture, including dual P-mags
>(already installed) and also the Z-22 feature on my Sky-tec
>starter which will eliminate run-on and the need for a
>high-current starter relay.
>I have just become aware of the No Battery Contactor suggestion
>made by George, gmcjetpilot, on the discussion forums at Doug Reeves' site:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4278
>(referencing specifically his first schematic; I'm not yet
>ready to change from an ER/OVP alternator just yet.)
>It seems to me his architecture would be reasonably safe,
>provided the ANL fuses in the fat wires were employed as
>depicted, and there might be no need of a separate endurance
>bus with the current drain of a battery contactor eliminated
>(loads could be shed with individual switches on each device
>on the main battery bus?) Certainly, if one went with the
>lighter-duty master relay he espouses, there would be the issue
>of bi-directional conductivity if a solid-state device were used.
>Could charging current from the alternator be routed directly to
>the PM starter solenoid terminal (Z-22-style) in a system where
>the power distribution topology was essentially as George proposes,
>or would this introduce something unsafe or uncontrollable that
>I'm not seeing? That would allow use of a unidirectional, SS
>relay in the 40 A-range for battery master service. What do
>you think of that idea?
>Thanks for your time. If you deem this of general interest,
>feel free to re-post to the List; I'd have no objection at all.
Over the years I've had dozens of alternative architectures
proposed to me and there have been dozens more incorporated
into what must by now be hundreds of airplanes flying.
No doubt the vast majority of owners of these projects will
report "great performance."
It's really easy to get into finely tuned debate on single
features of any change with plenty of opportunity for stirring
hyperbole and scare words when it comes to "safety".
Absolute safety in electrical system design is achieved when
one makes sure that catastrophic events like hard faults that
burn things and runaway events that also burn things are
brought to heal in a timely and unspectacular manner. Once
this is achieved, all issues of "safety" are covered.
Now we have to sort design goals which are selected for
a variety of motivations. The most important is
increasing probability of a no-sweat arrival for
any flight where the pilot has launched into conditions
suited to his/her skills and capability of the equipment.
Here's where I depart from many discussions where folks
suggest that selection of certain equipment items and/or
crafting of back-up systems are safety issues. The word
"safe" implies freedom from harm; affording
safety or security from danger, risk, or difficulty.
I'm sorry but automobiles, snow boards, airplanes and roller
skates are not entitled to a characterization of "safe".
One must utilize these tools with the knowledge that
users must have the skills to use them properly under
conditions favorable to successful outcome. They must conduct
preventative maintenance to reduce risks of intolerable
failure. Failure to respect all limitations offers a
swift and relentless outcome that makes these tools
far from safe . . . and most times for reasons that
have nothing to do with design.
In aircraft electrical systems we have an opportunity
to design failure tolerant systems. That has been a goal
of the 'Connection since day-one. No-one should ever
suggest that following a Z-figure is the Yellow Brick
Road to a "safe" airplane. It's only one feature of a
complex system that becomes less risky when it's simple,
user friendly, failure tolerant and tailored to the owner's
missions.
There is little doubt that what you've described above
will be functional. The questions you need to craft
and answer should focus on: "How do I find any existing
recommendation (like a Z-figure) insufficient? Are there
changes that would improve simplicity, cost of ownership, user
friendliness, consistency with traditional design goals,
etc." If you find some alternative design goals attractive,
those are your choices to make.
While researching battery chargers at RAC a few years
ago I had occasion to review about a dozen US patents
on various charger schemes. No doubt every one of them
would charge a battery. But the vast majority of the
patents lacked any evaluation of what was really
necessary to efficiently charge a battery. No consideration
for cost of ownership nor quest for the elegant design.
It's a sure bet that none of those patents were ever
licensed to someone who went out an sold $millions$
worth of product. The Z-figures have been distilled
for nearly 20-years under the 'Connection label. The
final word? Of course not. Compliant with design goals
stated? Yes, and modified from time to time to
improve on compliance.
It's a time consuming and generally unproductive
effort for me to join discussions on major shifts to
the Z-figures. Not because the Z-figures represent
any golden solutions but because they illustrate
design goals under which I provide goods and services
to my boss's customers and my own customers. If
anyone has a new design to offer, I would hope and
expect the designer to educate his/her customers as
to the design goals addressed and how those goals
are equal to or better than goals addressed in other
architectures.
This is the competitive capitalistic way of moving
technology and consumer acceptance forward. I know
this response doesn't help you . . . but you really
don't need my "help" . . . particularly when it's
likely to incite more smoke and hyperbole than real
understanding.
You need to be a responsible consumer and draw your
prospective supplier out. Make him/her explain how
The Next Great Thing is better and how well it embraces
your own need for simplicity, low cost of ownership
and failure tolerant design. Avoid injection of
terms like "safe" and "reliable" . . . they're
generally non-quantifiable and don't add understanding.
Any new concept should be solidly founded on
simple-ideas easily explained by the supplier and
understood by the customer. It's not believable unless
it's understandable. If you don't understand it,
don't do it.
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: TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:23 PM 12/16/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Bob:
>
>seeking your opinion on the advisability of using a temp-compensating
>regulator such as the LR-3 if I decide to move my Odyssey PC-628 to the
>forward side of the RV-6 firewall. In light of the recent temp data
>posted here from the well-instrumented engine compartment of a
>WittmanTailwind, I'm not sure I need to spend $318 on regulation hardware
>to keep my Odyssey RG battery happy for 1-2 yrs before its scheduled
>replacement.
Temperature compensation was crafted for the B&C
products about 15 years ago when a specific customer
complained about poor charging performance in his
GlasAir. Seems he spend HOURS at altitude with a rear
mounted battery that became cold-soaked. In hops
over the big pond, the battery would become so cold
that it would not accept a full charge after starting
the engine for the next leg of the trip. End result
was a soggy battery unsuited for standby power (or even
cranking) after the second or third hop.
Less than 1% of all OBAM aircraft can make good use
of this feature. If you plan to use your airplane in
very cold or very hot environs, you will not benefit
from adding the temperature compensation option.
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0354 1.0000 -1.7923
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Craig
Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
<<Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?-- Craig>>
12/17/2005
Hello Craig, The Klein catalog stripper number 1004 (with spring) and 1003
(without spring) is a very inexpensive manually operated stripper that will
do a good job. http://www.kleintools.com/. No dies, grips, or fancy
semi-automation to worry about.
The key to using this stripper is to make sample strips of the wire to be
stripped, examine each sample strip with a magnifying glass and make stop
screw adjustments until you get just the right depth of cut or pinch (your
choice) of the insulation.
You need to go through this trial and error process for each different size
or brand of wire that you are stripping, but once the stop screw is properly
set for that particular wire then stripping is a fast process.
If you decide to be primarily pinching and tearing the tough Tefzel
insulation then a pair of pliers with smooth jaws can be used to hold the
wire to be stripped while pulling off the short piece of insulation to be
removed.
OC
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: | two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
This is an update on a topic many of you helped
me with several months (years?) ago.
I am installing an auto conversion, which needs a
reliable source of power to the engine computer.
I had planned on installing a connection to the
computer from two busses. I recently found that
the ECU (ECM) has two physical connections for power.
I originally thought there was only one.
My concern is that if I use two different busses
to connect to these two different power inputs,
I might be creating a bridge between my two busses
via the engine computer - something I think I should
avoid. Here's a small write-up and a couple of
diagrams.
http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20040406145425120
I think having two physical connections to the ECU
will reduce the chance of failure due to mechanical
problems. As you may have guessed, I have no real
technical documentation on the ECU.
Will having diodes installed as shown be enough to
protect the respective busses? Any other hints or
things to watch out for?
Many thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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: Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gaylen Lerohl <lerohl@rea-alp.com>
Craig, You can buy a good generic stripper here:
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Page21.html . It does a good job on
M22759/16 tefzel insulated wire. Cheap too!
Gaylen
Terminaltown
Craig Payne wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
>where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
>ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
>use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
>location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
>
>-- Craig
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Less than 1% of all OBAM aircraft can make good use
> of this feature. If you plan to use your airplane in
> very cold or very hot environs, you will not benefit
> from adding the temperature compensation option.
Don't you mean to say that, if you live in a very cold or very hot
environment you want this feature? While I was living in the Virgin
Islands I discovered that batteries died very quickly, I suspect from
overcharging in the perpetually warm environment. I also suspect that
someone who spends a lot of time at high altitude would probably want
that too as the batt is going to get cold soaked.
Going back and forth to the VI I would spend a LOT of time at altitude
(12,000'-17,000'), at least two 4-hour hops and then one more hop of 2-3
hours at lower (10,000') altitude. I bet the battery got cold-soaked
even in the tropics. Batteries don't last more than a year. I would
prefer to have temp compensation.
BTW, does anyone make a temperature-compensated regulator for production
aircraft?
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Mickey
If it is like my Soob the two pins are physically connected in the
computer. This is often done just in case one set of pins gets damaged
or dirty. An ohmeter will confirm this. Certainly the diodes will do
what you want but they also introduce more connections etc. If you use
diodes I'd go with the same ones that Bob uses for his E bus.
I suspect that a separate battery makes us feel better but doesn't
really add much reliability. There are a lot of individual wires that
are essential in such a set up. -power to the ignition coils, power to
the injectors, the main ignition relay if it uses one, grounds, etc. I
think if I were going to run a single string system and use two
batteries, I'd either just parallel two batteries or set it up with
separate switches from each battery and forget about diodes. That would
leave it up to me to select which battery is engaged. I'd probably use
breakers (instead of fuses) and more likely two switch breakers if
concerned about momentary high current going from one battery to the
other after a short, or engaging the starter with both switches
erroneously selected on, or something else.
Ken
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>This is an update on a topic many of you helped
>me with several months (years?) ago.
>
>I am installing an auto conversion, which needs a
>reliable source of power to the engine computer.
>
>I had planned on installing a connection to the
>computer from two busses. I recently found that
>the ECU (ECM) has two physical connections for power.
>I originally thought there was only one.
>
>My concern is that if I use two different busses
>to connect to these two different power inputs,
>I might be creating a bridge between my two busses
>via the engine computer - something I think I should
>avoid. Here's a small write-up and a couple of
>diagrams.
>
> http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20040406145425120
>
>I think having two physical connections to the ECU
>will reduce the chance of failure due to mechanical
>problems. As you may have guessed, I have no real
>technical documentation on the ECU.
>
>Will having diodes installed as shown be enough to
>protect the respective busses? Any other hints or
>things to watch out for?
>
>Many thanks,
>Mickey
>
>
>
>
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: two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Ken,
Thanks for the info. I'll check the computer with an ohm meter
tomorrow. My batteries will be in parallel when each
of the battery contactors is on. This will be the normal
case. In a very extreme case, I may be running only on the
battery bus.
You are totally correct about the other points of failure.
I'm doing everything I can to add redundancy. In places
where there is only one path, I want to make sure that
path is as robust as possible.
My diagram is based on Z11 + Z30 with a Perihelion IR
alternator OVP thrown in for a bit of spice.
http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20041121101637759
Best regards,
Mickey
Ken wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> Mickey
>
> If it is like my Soob the two pins are physically connected in the
> computer. This is often done just in case one set of pins gets damaged
> or dirty. An ohmeter will confirm this. Certainly the diodes will do
> what you want but they also introduce more connections etc. If you use
> diodes I'd go with the same ones that Bob uses for his E bus.
>
> I suspect that a separate battery makes us feel better but doesn't
> really add much reliability. There are a lot of individual wires that
> are essential in such a set up. -power to the ignition coils, power to
> the injectors, the main ignition relay if it uses one, grounds, etc. I
> think if I were going to run a single string system and use two
> batteries, I'd either just parallel two batteries or set it up with
> separate switches from each battery and forget about diodes. That would
> leave it up to me to select which battery is engaged. I'd probably use
> breakers (instead of fuses) and more likely two switch breakers if
> concerned about momentary high current going from one battery to the
> other after a short, or engaging the starter with both switches
> erroneously selected on, or something else.
>
> Ken
>
> Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>>
>>This is an update on a topic many of you helped
>>me with several months (years?) ago.
>>
>>I am installing an auto conversion, which needs a
>>reliable source of power to the engine computer.
>>
>>I had planned on installing a connection to the
>>computer from two busses. I recently found that
>>the ECU (ECM) has two physical connections for power.
>>I originally thought there was only one.
>>
>>My concern is that if I use two different busses
>>to connect to these two different power inputs,
>>I might be creating a bridge between my two busses
>>via the engine computer - something I think I should
>>avoid. Here's a small write-up and a couple of
>>diagrams.
>>
>> http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20040406145425120
>>
>>I think having two physical connections to the ECU
>>will reduce the chance of failure due to mechanical
>>problems. As you may have guessed, I have no real
>>technical documentation on the ECU.
>>
>>Will having diodes installed as shown be enough to
>>protect the respective busses? Any other hints or
>>things to watch out for?
>>
>>Many thanks,
>>Mickey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative architectures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
snip...
>>There is little doubt that what you've described above
will be functional. The questions you need to craft
and answer should focus on: "How do I find any existing
recommendation (like a Z-figure) insufficient? Are there
changes that would improve simplicity, cost of ownership, user
friendliness, consistency with traditional design goals,
etc." If you find some alternative design goals attractive,
those are your choices to make.<< snip...
Bob: thanks for the considerable time you took to reply to my inquiry. It was
actually more helpful than you might imagine, especially the Socratic aspects
;-)
My specific interest in the suggested departure form Z-13/8 architecture is rooted
in "the relentless pursuit of weight reduction," which is one of the few remaining
creative avenues open to airplane builders once their project is finished,
flying, and the peformance, while stellar, has become a bit routine. I
trust you understand that. It's exactly what would drive me to replace my welding
cable battery leads with Eric's fatwire - an expensive diversion, but far
less so than ordering a new airplane kit.
Here, we have the opportunity to shed two rather heavy contactors, one of which
is enough of a current hog to justify the existence of an entirely separate "endurance
bus" with its own feed provisions. I'm simply asking a far more experienced
pair of eyes to look over my shoulders in case I'm overlooking any obvious
perils or "gotcha's" before heading off in George's suggested direction.
I've soldered enough homebrew ham gear in my time to know that gremlins conceal
themselves cleverly from the unexpecting...
You have not pointed out any pitfalls in the proposed design, which does seem to
offer some simplification and weight savings over what I was about to embark
on, so you are either waiting for "Grasshopper" to see the error of his Kung
Fu, or else the path ahead indeed looks clear from your lofty perch. I will study
this move awhile longer before I say "final answer," (am I mixing enough
metaphors here?) but I will admit it looks acceptable so far.
BTW, you've convinced me that the TC regulator is not going to be necessary. If
I end up moving my Odyssey to FWF in the RV, I would be glad to be your test
dummy for the instrumented flights you proposed earlier.
Tnx agn, OM.
-Bill B
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: | TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:18 PM 12/17/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > Less than 1% of all OBAM aircraft can make good use
> > of this feature. If you plan to use your airplane in
> > very cold or very hot environs, you will not benefit
> > from adding the temperature compensation option.
>
>Don't you mean to say that, if you live in a very cold or very hot
>environment you want this feature? While I was living in the Virgin
>Islands I discovered that batteries died very quickly, I suspect from
>overcharging in the perpetually warm environment. I also suspect that
>someone who spends a lot of time at high altitude would probably want
>that too as the batt is going to get cold soaked.
Opps, got my tongue tangled around my eyeteeh and couldn't see
what I was saying . . . and certainly the desire/need to make voltage
adjustments vs. temperature is not unique to high altitude
cold. The T-6 we sell to the military was cooking batteries
like crazy down in Texas until we recommended a fleet wide
drop in regulator set-point. Our Canadian customers likewise
run a higher than average setpoint. Obviously, this product would
benefit from temperature compensated charging controls.
>Going back and forth to the VI I would spend a LOT of time at altitude
>(12,000'-17,000'), at least two 4-hour hops and then one more hop of 2-3
>hours at lower (10,000') altitude. I bet the battery got cold-soaked
>even in the tropics. Batteries don't last more than a year. I would
>prefer to have temp compensation.
It's certainly available.
>BTW, does anyone make a temperature-compensated regulator for production
>aircraft?
Not that I'm aware of. I've often lamented that fact. For example:
A number of years ago, NiCads were battery du jour for bizjets
and turbine aircraft. After a few battery fires due to inability
of charging system to accommodate unique needs of NiCads, the
folks back east decided the best approach was to put another
instrument on the panel (battery temp), some warning lights.
They expanded the pilot's operating handbook to make him a battery
overheat manager too.
A relatively simple mod to existing regulator designs could have
given a regulator sufficient data to accommodate the battery
and let the pilot concentrate on doing what pilots are hired for.
Come to think of it, there MAY be some $high$ regulators for
turbines that offer temperature compensation. Concord has several
batteries with thermistors between the cells and a connector
on the outside.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Concord_Temp_Sense.jpg
I'll have to ask Skip if these are for temperature compensation
or overheat warning and what airplanes they apply to. Certainly
the utility of having such features has been around for a long
time. I offered it to Cessna's single engine group about 30
years ago. This was after I had become a supplier of regulators
to Cessna. I wrote the recommendations for seasonal
adjustment of regulator voltage in the maintenance manual
when I was a Cessna tech writer.
Bob . . .
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|