Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:01 AM - Switch Failure (Bruce McGregor)
2. 06:22 AM - Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) (Ken)
3. 06:36 AM - Opening Switch Contacts ()
4. 07:14 AM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (N395V)
5. 07:33 AM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (Deems Davis)
6. 07:51 AM - Re: Opening Switch Contacts (Richard Riley)
7. 08:39 AM - What makes an aircraft IFR certified - AOPA Legal view (John Markey)
8. 09:11 AM - What makes an aircraft IFR certified - AOPA Legal view (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 09:11 AM - Re: Transponder/EFIS Gray code (Brian Lloyd)
10. 09:11 AM - Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) (Brian Lloyd)
11. 09:57 AM - Re: Switch Failure (Mickey Coggins)
12. 12:29 PM - Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines (Bill Czygan)
13. 01:08 PM - Re: Alternator conversion (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 01:16 PM - Re: Switch Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 01:32 PM - Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and Bob N.) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 01:39 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 02:19 PM - Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 02:19 PM - Re: Alternator conversion (Mickey Coggins)
19. 02:36 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 02:46 PM - Re: Re: Odyssey % of charge (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 02:59 PM - Re: Rotax Battery/Regulator Questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 03:02 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Craig Mac Arthur)
23. 03:38 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 03:40 PM - Re: Re: Odyssey % of charge (Brian Lloyd)
25. 04:15 PM - Re: Baclup Battery monitor (Matt Prather)
26. 04:57 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Scott)
27. 05:14 PM - Re: Switch Failure (sportav8r@aol.com)
28. 06:47 PM - Re: Re: Odyssey % of charge (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 06:48 PM - Re: Switch Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 07:07 PM - Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) (Alex Peterson)
31. 07:50 PM - Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) (Brian Lloyd)
32. 08:06 PM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (glaesers)
33. 08:15 PM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (Phil White)
34. 10:32 PM - Re: Gotcha! ()
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys@comcast.net>
FWIW, I found this message on the GlaStar e-mail group:
Just thought that I would pass this along for everyone's edification. I
noticed that my strobes were not working the other day so I checked the
fuses and sure enough, the strobe fuse was blown. I replaced the fuse and it
popped as soon as I flipped the master switch on. I traced the wire from the
fuse panel to the toggle switch and there was no chafing or problems
visible. I disconnected the wire that goes to the strobe power supply from
the strobe switch and tried it again, POP! Now I'm looking right at the 18"
of wire that goes from the fuse panel to the strobe switch and it's
undamaged. The wire that goes to the power supply is disconnected and the
switch is in the OFF position yet there is a dead short! I removed the
switch and checked the continuity between the terminals and the body of the
switch and sure enough, the switch was shorted internally. I replaced the
switch with one of my spares and all was back to normal. I took the switch
apart and found that the moving contact rocker inside the switch was
touching the switch body. I'll include a photo of the switch guts for your
amusement, you can see the arcing on the switch cover. The switch is from
B&C and is a CARLING brand. I'll be sure that I carry a spare in my parts
bag.
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
This is one I've never heard of before.
The manufacturer of my wee AGM specifies a float voltage which I've been
using. This implies that a pulse type battery maintainer might be better
or maybe that they should not be float charged continuously while in
storage?? These are small but somewhat pricey Dekka batteries on a Z-14
architecture so there is no plan to periodically replace them - just
flog flog them until noticeable starting performance suffers.
thanks
Ken
> Grid corrosion occurs if you leave the battery on float for a long
>time. The oxygen gas formed eats at the grids that support the paste.
>
>
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: | Opening Switch Contacts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
2/25/2006
FYI:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4468957986746104671&q=500kv
OC
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: LED position lights + strobe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "N395V" <N395V@direcway.com>
Is this the place?
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=14906#14906
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: LED position lights + strobe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
I just installed these, http://deemsrv10.com/decisions.html (scroll down
to LED & Strobe write-up). They are made by an RV7 builder named Jeff
Bordelon. The links are in the write-up
Deems
sarg314 wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
>Some months ago I saw a small outfit selling small LED position lights
>which also accomodated a strobe light and would fit in the van's
>recessed (enclosed) wingtips. I thought I saved a reference to it, but
>can't find it. Does this ring a bell with any one?
>--
>Tom Sargent
>engine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Opening Switch Contacts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
At 06:35 AM 2/25/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>2/25/2006
>
>FYI:
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4468957986746104671&q=500kv
More information on that video - and lots of other videos and
pictures of big arcs and lightning bolts -
http://teslamania.delete.org/frames/longarc.htm#Longspark
Those guys are crazy.
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: | What makes an aircraft IFR certified - AOPA Legal view |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Markey <markeypilot@yahoo.com>
Here's a question asked by an AOPA member who contacted our aviation services
staff through the AOPA Pilot Information Center. Test your knowledge.
Question: What makes an aircraft IFR certified?
Answer: An aircraft is considered IFR certified based
on its installed equipment. As long as there is no statement prohibiting IFR
flight on the type certificate data sheet or in the operating limitations of
the aircraft, IFR flight is permitted provided it has the required operable
equipment listed in 14 CFR 91.205(d), flight manual supplements, and all appropriate
inspections, maintenance requirements, and checks have been complied
with. The instrument cockpit check (ICC) is a good systematic check of all radios
and navigation equipment that ensures proper operation of equipment prior
to flight. If you plan on using an IFR-certified GPS for approaches, remember
to ensure the database is current. For additional information on these and
other inspections, see AOPA Online.
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
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: | What makes an aircraft IFR certified - AOPA Legal view |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning All,
Reading the reference submitted it could be construed as saying that a
current data card must be in the set.
For some installations, that would be true.
However, many installations have an approved Airplane Flight Manual
Supplement which states that the pilot must assure that the data to be used is
current and that the data that is used must be taken from an onboard datacard.
If the pilot uses a another method to assure that the data is current, the
approach can be legally conducted. Obviously, the easiest way to determine
currency is to have a current data card, but, depending on just how the
individual FMS is written, it MAY be legal to conduct the approach with an out
of
date card.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 2/25/2006 10:41:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
markeypilot@yahoo.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Markey <markeypilot@yahoo.com>
Here's a question asked by an AOPA member who contacted our aviation
services staff through the AOPA Pilot Information Center. Test your knowledge.
Question: What makes an aircraft IFR certified?
Answer: An aircraft is considered IFR certified based on its installed
equipment. As long as there is no statement prohibiting IFR flight on the type
certificate data sheet or in the operating limitations of the aircraft, IFR
flight is permitted provided it has the required operable equipment listed
in 14 CFR 91.205(d), flight manual supplements, and all appropriate
inspections, maintenance requirements, and checks have been complied with. The
instrument cockpit check (ICC) is a good systematic check of all radios and
navigation equipment that ensures proper operation of equipment prior to flight.
If you plan on using an IFR-certified GPS for approaches, remember to
ensure the database is current. For additional information on these and other
inspections, see AOPA Online.
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Transponder/EFIS Gray code |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>
> Thanks for the help Brian, I think you mis-understood my question on the
> Gray Code connection to the transponder. You are correct that the SL70 has
> both Gray code and serial encoder inputs. But.....my EFIS D10 is an
> original production model and does NOT have an encoder serial data OUTPUT
> like the newer EFIS D10-A model.
Ah, you are correct. I was thinking that the D10 had serial but not grey
code output. It is all a matter of listening to the question. ;-)
> So I have to use the Gray code signals out
> of the EFIS to drive the transponder. The EFIS has "A", "B" and "C" Gray
> code signals (out) which correspond to the transponder Gray code inputs with
> one exception. The Transponder has one additional Gray code input labeled
> "D4" but the EFIS does NOT have a "D4" output (I assume this extra input
> allows the Transponder to encode and transmit higher altitudes than those
> with just A/B/C inputs).
Correct. It adds one more data bit in addition to the 9 bits you already
have. It allows altitudes above 25,000'.
> In any case, my question is what to do with this
> "D4" input at the transponder end. Is it ok to leave it unconnected
> (floating) or do I need to connect it to a positive voltage or...to ground?
The transponder already has the necessary pull-up resistor at its input
so that if you don't connect the D4 input, it will automatically default
to a zero.
> Can't find any direction in the manual so I assume leaving it float will not
> cause a problem but would really like to know for sure. Sorry for the
> initial confusion.
No problem.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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 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: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Ken wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> This is one I've never heard of before.
>
> The manufacturer of my wee AGM specifies a float voltage which I've been
> using. This implies that a pulse type battery maintainer might be better
> or maybe that they should not be float charged continuously while in
> storage?? These are small but somewhat pricey Dekka batteries on a Z-14
> architecture so there is no plan to periodically replace them - just
> flog flog them until noticeable starting performance suffers.
Follow Deka's instructions for maintaining the battery. My larger 245AH
8D Deka AGMs say don't give them an equalization charge. Flooded cell
batteries benefit from a periodic equalization charge.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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 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: Switch Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> touching the switch body. I'll include a photo of the switch guts for your
> amusement, you can see the arcing on the switch cover. The switch is from
> B&C and is a CARLING brand. I'll be sure that I carry a spare in my parts
> bag.
Can you put the photo on imageshack.us and send us a link? First time
I've heard of someone with a failed switch.
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: | Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Czygan <bczygan@yahoo.com>
Bob and all,
I, and a lot of other UL aircraft owners are going to have to register and
N number our aircraft in the next year. If we want to use our aircraft to take
the practical test we will have to install certain instruments. In addition,
many of us will need ELTTs and transponders to operate them. Most of these aircraft
will require some sort of electrical system to support this equipment. Most
of these aircraft have Rotax or other 2 stroke engines. I want to design and
install the most reliable system I can. What basic design considerations can
you tell me to follow.
Bill Czygan
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
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: Alternator conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Bill Bradburry wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Bradburry"
<bbradburry@allvantage.com>
>>
>>Bob and others.
>>I have seen several instructions on how to convert MI and ND alternators
>>to either external regulation or to internal regulation such that the
>>field wire can be used to shut the alternator down. These instructions
>>seem simple enough that I feel that I could do it.
<snip>
At 09:20 AM 2/24/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Hi Bill
>
>Sure you can do this if you wish and there is nothing wrong with that.
>The subject comes up periodically and several folks have posted
>suggested methods for some specific alternators. Some look to be easier
>to mod than others. There are a couple of companies that offer such units.
>
>I was not particularly interested as it seemed somewhat
>counterproductive. You must do the mod and not cause a related problem
>by doing so which is probably not too difficult. However it wouldn't be
>the first time that a problem was caused just by opening a factory
>assembled device. You must purchase and install a separate voltage
>regulator which may not be as good as what is already in the alternator
>depending on which one you choose. The remote Regulator will not be able
>to monitor the alternator's temperature although I guess that is a
>pretty minor consideration. You must find a place to put that regulator
>and wire it reliably. Most important perhaps, you can no longer purchase
>a replacement off the shelf alternator and quickly install it.
>
>In addition I have little concern with using an OV contactor and a few
>transorbs on my IR alternator. I'm betting that eventually Bob will
>likely confirm that approach with some real testing and actual numbers.
>Risks are low either way I think.
Very perceptive sir. Repeatability of results has been a HUGE
factor in my thoughts about mounting a task to craft IR alternator
modification instructions. The folks who make alternators
have refined designs, materials and manufacturing techniques
over decades of experience. While the modifications necessary
for positive external control are tiny, we must craft a
disassembly and re-assembly technique that does not introduce
degrading artifacts produced by lack of knowledge or skill.
Crafting an elegant set of instructions and assuming that a
large majroity of neophyte builders will achieve success is
like tossing a recipe for one of Emeril's prized creations on
the counter and expecting your teenager to achieve exemplar results
first crack out of the flour bin.
My reluctance to embrace the IR alternator has never been
about quality and suitability to the original task (long lived
performance in automobiles). It's always been about how
to incorporate the product into established design goals with
a minimum of risk and expense Obviously, minimum risk occurs when
we install the device as-received into an environment that
will artfully ADAPT it to our design goals.
Some might wonder why we didn't arrive at this juncture several
years ago? What's new?
I cannot speak for others . . . but for myself, the quest for
elegant solutions is an iterative process. It's time consuming
effort that sifts through the simple-ideas looking for the minimum
parts count, minimum risk, minimum cost, maximum performance
solution (Ask Emeril how many times he crafted that dish, or
precursors to it, before he put the first plate in front of
a customer). It takes time and focus . . . I've contemplated
thousands of non-related questions concerning hundreds of
other tasks/goals in the interval between my first regulator
design and the present time.
My first task for aircraft voltage regulation was 25 years
ago and bounded by the goal of crafting an external regulator
compatible with an ER alternator already in place on an airplane
(A-36 Bonanza). A few years later, I reused lessons learned for
an OBAM aircraft alternator wherein B&C had already mastered
disassembly, modification, re-assembly skills for an automotive
adaptation to ER operation.
The technology to do what I see in my head today WAS available
in some form back then. But it was not the task. If anyone
believes B&C set out to master a risky modification to a perfectly good
alternator and then build a companion regulator just to make more
money on their value-added efforts doesn't understand the art
of crafting, manufacturing and marketing hardware.
Had Bill tasked me then to tame the wild IR alternator
for use under contemporary aircraft design goals, I probably
could and would have done it. It's a sure bet that B&C's stable
of products would be VERY different today. Did we make a mistake
then? I don't think so - B&C's line of products have done well.
Is it the wave of the future? Not unless you think we should be
bolting carburetors and cam-driven, diaphragm fuel pumps to our engines.
Today, I see better technology and have new ways to do things that
I've learned over the intervening 25 years. I now KNOW that the solution
is simple, reliable and costs much less than the well-crafted but dated
ideas of yesteryear.
This is not intended to be a critique of anyone's design or marketing
decisions. It's an illustration of cause and effect but with
the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Had B&C launched into an effort
to integrate the IR alternator back then, no doubt much of the
jousting and agitated rhetoric we've endured would not have happened.
Had either A. Hitler -OR- C. Kettering died of SIDS . . . no doubt
the planet's present landscape would be different too.
Hindsight is a great tool especially when used to illuminate
successes/errors
and encourage the discovery and application of simple-ideas in new ways.
I would NOT want to be a fresh graduate today. Folks coming out of
schools have little if ANY historical knowledge of what's gone before
them and their fresh new jobs are agonizingly lacking in mentorship.
Folks who use the Internet as a learning tool have better access to
a broader spectrum of history and technologies than most of our
descendants
are going to receive from schools and shepherds over their budding
careers. Their successes are increasingly dependent on personal
quests and cultivation of widely scattered relationships.
The Internet is an increasingly powerful and necessary tool of
success for just about everybody. We cannot expect our close circle
of teachers and mentors to pick up the slack . . . they cannot teach
that which they do not know (See "The Sovereign Individual" by
Davidson/Reed-Moog).
As a side note. When the Internet is mentioned as a target of
terrorism, a vast majority of our fellow citizens on this planet
think about the loss of access to their down-loaded entertainment.
I shudder to think of returning to a modus-operandi for sharing
of data and cultivation of new ideas that was standard practice
25 years ago. Loss of the coax coming into the back of my house
would bring my career to a halt . . . the recovery mode arduous
to contemplate. Even if recovery were possible, it would be under
comparably miserable circumstances.
As James Burke illustrated in "Connections", stimulation for some
important leaps forward in science have been attributed to diligence of a
few monks who took ideas sent to them, translated into other languages
as necessary and forwarded to individuals in other countries
by the same donkey. What might the world look like today if
da Vinci, Watt, Kettering, Volta, and Coulomb were able to communicate
with their contemporaries as we do today? Conversations on this List
have encouraged the necessary focus on my part to consider the IR
integration problem again. For all its warts and high-blood pressure
discussions, the Internet has again demonstrated value. We live in
interesting and powerfully capable times folks. It's just sad and
maddening that so much $time$ and effort is expended by individuals
to gain advantage over others by equally powerful means that do not
add value for anyone.
Bob . . .
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Switch Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:54 AM 2/25/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor"
><bruceflys@comcast.net>
>
>FWIW, I found this message on the GlaStar e-mail group:
>
>Just thought that I would pass this along for everyone's edification. I
>noticed that my strobes were not working the other day so I checked the
>fuses and sure enough, the strobe fuse was blown. I replaced the fuse and it
>popped as soon as I flipped the master switch on. I traced the wire from the
>fuse panel to the toggle switch and there was no chafing or problems
>visible. I disconnected the wire that goes to the strobe power supply from
>the strobe switch and tried it again, POP! Now I'm looking right at the 18"
>of wire that goes from the fuse panel to the strobe switch and it's
>undamaged. The wire that goes to the power supply is disconnected and the
>switch is in the OFF position yet there is a dead short! I removed the
>switch and checked the continuity between the terminals and the body of the
>switch and sure enough, the switch was shorted internally. I replaced the
>switch with one of my spares and all was back to normal. I took the switch
>apart and found that the moving contact rocker inside the switch was
>touching the switch body. I'll include a photo of the switch guts for your
>amusement, you can see the arcing on the switch cover. The switch is from
>B&C and is a CARLING brand. I'll be sure that I carry a spare in my parts
>bag.
Please if you can. Send me the switch, removed with care to avoid
disturbing it's condition. I'll reimburse you for any expense.
It's VERY seldom we get to do an autopsy on field failures. So
much of what's seen by technicians in the trenches is simply viewed
as a maintenance issue with no interest in root causes. This makes
our jobs as systems designers exceedingly more difficult. We cannot
avoid or fix a condition for which we have no knowledge.
Your cooperation in an effort to understand would be appreciated more
than you know.
Bob . . .
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey |
and Bob N.)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:34 PM 2/24/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>Mickey wants to turn his car off at 100 mph and
>
> AND
>
> Bob N. wants proof.
Not proof sir . . . UNDERSTANDING. I see those words on the 4-color
brochures and bang-for-the-buck bullets at the top of data
sheets . . . all of which ASSUME that your understanding
of their words is the same as their understanding of
their words.
<snip>
>
> As far as control of I-VR alternators, it would be wonderful to use
> and trust the IGN wire. We could put a crow-bar on the CB to the
> IGN lead. However you can't depend on it (apparently from
> historical & empirical data). That's why a pullable CB on the B-
> lead, to positively isolate the alternator, independent of anything is
> suggested. Another way to achieve the same isolation is the crow
> bar and over voltage relay on the B-lead. That works also but its
> heavy, costly, complicated and potentially can cause nuisance
> trips. In defense of the crow-bar it is automatic. The pullable CB
> needs pilot action. The choice is the builders. As Bob N. says if
> you can't take the small chance of an OV, than use an External
> Regulator and OV module of some kind. if for no other reason
> it is simple. However there is no guarantee that will work 100%
> There's no 100% system.
. . . and nobody has ever claimed there was. For Part 25 airplanes
we're chartered to do the fault trees with probabilities applied to
each branch. When just one of those numbers is assumed, the result
suffers from a garbage-in-garbage out syndrome. That's why I
have come to believe that they add little value in determining our
future field experience. I can show you dozens of carefully calculated
predictions of golden operations in fielded systems that don't
even come close. That's why failure tolerance is so much easier to
embrace that hoped-for failure proof.
I'm working on an article that will illustrate the pitfalls of
accepting the bang-for-the-buck bullets -OR- the four-color
brochures at face value. Soon . . .
Bob . . .
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | An Architecture Question - Z13 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:35 PM 2/24/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Todd Richmond"
><trichmond@obermeyer.com>
>
>All good points, which lead to two operational questions assuming the
>Z-13/8. First, I would assume that normal operations would include closing
>the alternate feed switch to the e-bus, true?
No. It's crafted to be open except when needed for independent
power of goodies on the e-bus during alternator out operations in
the endurance mode.
> And second, is there a risk
>of damage should the SD-8 inadvertently become activated while the primary
>alternator is running?
There is no risk for damage to either alternator by having it
on line with the other alternator. Neither is there a guarantee
of performance with respect to these alternators performing in
concert with each other in some predictable sharing of loads.
>Hopefully these aren't ignorant questions. Thanks.
Not at all . . . but perhaps not very useful answers if we're ignorant
of the conditions that raised the questions. You can help us help
you by describing more of what your goals are and by sharing
the circumstances that raised your questions than by simply
posting the questions.
What caused you to believe that a 60/20 combination of engine
driven power sources was the most useful/practical? What operational
consideration raises questions in the ability of one of the Z-figures
to handle as presently configured?
Bob . . .
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Engines
At 12:23 PM 2/25/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Czygan <bczygan@yahoo.com>
>
>Bob and all,
> I, and a lot of other UL aircraft owners are going to have to
> register and N number our aircraft in the next year. If we want to use
> our aircraft to take the practical test we will have to install certain
> instruments. In addition, many of us will need ELTTs and transponders to
> operate them. Most of these aircraft will require some sort of electrical
> system to support this equipment. Most of these aircraft have Rotax or
> other 2 stroke engines. I want to design and install the most reliable
> system I can. What basic design considerations can you tell me to follow.
>
Bill,
My sense is that you're new to both the Owner Built and Maintained
(OBAM) aircraft community and to this List-server. Welcome! I'll
suggest that you've chosen a good place from which to launch
your inquiries. I trust that others on the List will join me
in helping expand your horizons both in knowledge and understanding
that helps you achieve your goals.
May I suggest that you have two avenues of inquiry to pursue?
The first is the science and art of crafting an electrical system
that is an elegant solution of lowest cost of ownership with
the greatest utility. The second is identification of the materials,
tools and skills for turning ideas into functional hardware.
On the first task, may I suggest you cruise the down-load materials
available at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Downloads.html
Just glance at these items just to get a feel for what they offer
and as a reference as to where to come back and get them as
needed. In particular, read the chapter from The AeroElectric Connection
on system reliability . . . you can get it at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/8-%3E9/ch17-9.pdf
Of course, the system you're going to need is VERY simple compared
with those being installed in the majority of OBAM aircraft . . . but
the reliability chapter is more about an attitude that suggests
failure tolerance is much easier to achieve than failure proof.
A potential architecture for your project is illustrated in
Figure Z-16 of:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11E.pdf
For hardware, there are dozens of sources. Look at:
http://bandc.biz/
http://steinair.com/
http://aircraftspruce.com/
http://wicksaircraft.com/
http://terminaltown.com/
. . . just to name a few.
Okay, now that you have sampled the water from the fire-hose,
you're faced with selection decisions both in the philosophy
and the application of ideas. That's where this List will help.
Ask questions . . . and include the background in your thinking
that formed the question. There are over 1300 folks on the list -
many have the same questions.
They're watching this list go by because they find value in what's
offered. You can help increase the value by posing questions
that dozens of folks are willing to ponder the options and offer
suggestions . . . to the benefit of many more than yourself.
Bob . . .
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Alternator conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> ... It's just sad and
> maddening that so much $time$ and effort is expended by individuals
> to gain advantage over others by equally powerful means that do not
> add value for anyone.
So true. The problem is that these people have not figured
out how to add value, and they feel they must do *something*,
so they suck value from whomever they can.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | An Architecture Question - Z13 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:17 PM 2/24/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert G. Wright"
><armywrights@adelphia.net>
>
>A thought I keep having during these double alternator discussions is:
>What's wrong with having two alternators online at the same time, with the
>standby set to a volt less than the main? The standby would only then
>support the load of the bus it's attached to if the main went offline (this
>assumes that a "nonessential" bus goes away automatically when the main alt
>fails).
>
>Rob
Not a bit. That's what Z-12 is all about. That system is now installed
in a whole boat load of Bonanzas, big Pipers and Mooneys. If the features
illustrated in that configuration are attractive to you, there's nobody here
on the list who would discourage you from doing it. Incorporation
of automatic switching of buses is problematic. When an alternator quits,
the airplane does not immediately roll over and head for the ground
trailing black smoke. If the interval between notification of low voltage
and re-configuration of the system for plan-b operations were 60 seconds
or 120 seconds, or . . . the probable outcome of the flight is not highly
dependent on reaction to the failure.
It's seems better to have plan-b in your check list (and adequate
notification
that plan-b is now the order of the day) than to add complexity and cost of
ownership for automatic changes of configuration. Z-13/8 is, in my never
humble opinion, very cost effective and offers not only a plan-B but a
plan-C
alternative to looking for someplace very close to set down. My personal
goal
is to craft systems and ways to use them where a limit to endurance is
determined
only by fuel aboard and not on unknowns or poorly planned design and
maintenance
of an electrical system.
Read chapter 17, look over the Z-figures. If there are any perceived
short comings of any of the suggested architectures that prompt useful
changes, bring them up. There's always room for improvement.
Bob . . .
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Odyssey % of charge |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:48 PM 2/24/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> >> Having a smart energy monitor is necessary in a system where you will
> >> have irregular charge/discharge cycles and want to know how much is left
> >> in the battery.
> >
> >
> > Agreed . . . but how does this happen on an airplane and how
> > often might one expect to encounter it? . . . and are there
> > less complicated and more positive ways to achieve the desired
> > mission/maintenance conditions?
>
>Oh, I agree that you don't need a complex energy monitor nor do you need
>a fancy charger. OTOH, I have had experience with batteries failing due
>to overcharge in hot weather and failing to charge properly in cold weather.
>
> >> If you always recharge the battery to full every time,
> >> you can have a much simpler energy monitor that isn't quite so smart.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> >
> >> The biggest issue as I see it is that you need to make sure you don't
> >> overcharge the battery in summer but that you do actually charge the
> >> battery in winter. That implies temperature compensation.
> >
> > Agreed . . . and it's not clear that we have really practical
> > ways to achieve that. The LR-3 from B&C offers a battery temp
> > sensor option. But it's not clear to me that this option will
> > produce really meaningful differences in battery performance for
> > most of our fellow airplane drivers.
>
>I believe that this is one of the key reasons why current crop of
>"sealed" AGM aircraft batteries have such a poor service record. Flooded
>cell batteries shrug off overcharge by just boiling off excess water
>which gets topped off by the owner or mechanic. AGMs build up pressure
>in the case and valves open and relieve the pressure, letting the water
>go to the atmosphere. The AGM battery, having no excess
>electrolyte/water, quickly quits working. I have never had an AGM
>battery (Concorde especially) survive longer than two years in a
>standard aircraft electrical system.
It would be interesting to put a battery black-box on those
airplanes. I'm working a design for just such a critter with
one of my associates at RAC. It's a matchbook sized module that
installs in the head-space of an AGM battery. For a period of three
years, it will measure and record battery voltage and temperature
every 10 seconds.
When a battery craps in warranty, the owner recycles the battery
through local channels and sends the 0.5 ounce module back to the factory.
For batteries out of warranty, the owner gets a discount on a
new battery if he returns the black-box along with his order.
I expect this product to yield very revealing data both about
materials and processes used to craft good batteries along with
detailed insight into the battery's experience up and until
the time of failure/replacement.
This is a desperately needed tool for closing the loop in the
consumer/supplier relationship for batteries. So much bad blood
has flowed and much opportunity for improvement lost for lack
of data. The vast majority of discussions/deductions/accusations
about battery life has been floobydust from the customers,
interested observers AND manufacturers. A crapped battery is exceedingly
difficult to deduce life history from a simple teardown inspection.
Nobody is deserving of kudos or cabbages because there are no data
from which understanding can grow.
Bob . . .
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Rotax Battery/Regulator Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:28 AM 2/24/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>I am referencing the Rotax wiring diagrams at the following link:
>
>http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/pdf/dokus/d00287.pdf
>
>The diagrams are located on Adobe Acrobat page 53 of 68, which is Rotax
>page number 18-5.
>
>There are three diagrams on the page, I am referring to the bottom two,
>labeled "wiring diagram in conjuction with a battery" which I will call
>"No Starter", and "wiring diagram for electric starter", which I will call
>"Starter".
>
>On the No Starter diagram, it calls for a 12V 9Ah minimum battery, while
>on the Starter diagram, it calls for a 12V 16Ah minimum battery. I am
>assuming that the additional capacity of the battery on the Starter
>diagram is specified in order to provide adequate starting power.
>
>My question has to do with the No Starter diagram. Why is the "9Ah
>minimum" specified, and what would be the result of using a lower capacity
>battery?
Take this to an extreme. Suppose you had a 12v battery with 0.5 a.h.
capacity. How might we deduce this to have an effect on the system?
It's very small (perhaps 8 ounces) and our operating philosophy does
not depend on standby power from a battery. Why would Rotax care?
We can only guess because we don't have the benefit of conversing
with the writer of those words (assuming too that he even understands
the simple-ideas that support them).
The smaller the battery, the more vulnerable it is to abuse. The
regulators supplied with most alternators of ANY size or utilty
are not precision devices designed to maximize battery life. Liberties
are taken with performance to offer ADEQUATE battery life assuming
a whole lot of operating conditions.
The smaller the battery, the more likely you are to experience
unsatisfactory he service life. Why 9 a.h., it's a WAG. 9 is better
than 6 but probably worse that 12. If you need to make the point
in your instructions, you throw the dart and pick a number that
upsets the fewest numbers of folks who review your work.
>In one of the (many!) projects I am considering, I would be using a Rotax
>477 without an electric starter. However, I would have Nav/Strobe/Landing
>lights, a couple of small electronic gauges, a handheld NAV/COM, a
>handheld GPS, and a panel mount transponder, all connected to ship's power.
>
>My reasons for considering the use of a battery would be to provide
>pre-start power for the radio and GPS and to provide power in an
>engine-out situation. I'm also thinking that it would keep the available
>power up during low RPM operations, and possibly "smooth" the power a bit.
>
>Would I actually need a 9Ah battery for these purposes, or would a smaller
>unit suffice?
>
>If a battery smaller than 9Ah is acceptable from a load standpoint, would
>a smaller battery create a problem with the regulator/rectifier?
A fat capacitor would provide most adequate smoothing. If you're
driven with desire for a small battery, try anything and see how
long it lasts. If your perceptions of value are poor, then a bigger
battery or perhaps an alternate brand is in order. Maybe a fat
cap and a small battery will be useful for you. You're going to have
to try it and then tell us what you discover. As a suggestion: Put
47,000 uf or more and any battery you like in the system. Then let
us know how it works out.
>Now a question specific to the No Starter diagram:
>
>Would it be acceptable to install a toggle-switch circuit breaker in place
>of the 16A fuse in the black wire which runs between the regulator and the
>battery? Would it be desirable to have a means of isolating the regulator
>in this way? What size circuit breaker should be used?
It won't hurt. Nobody here should be chartered with determining
what's acceptable . . . only what's useful based on predictable
performance and accommodation of your design goals.
>Thanks in advance for anyone's help, and if my questions are less than
>clear or less than properly worded, please feel free to read between the lines!
Better we should ask for clarification of the question
than guess. The conversation is generally shorter and more
to the point that way.
Bob . . .
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | An Architecture Question - Z13 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Mac Arthur" <jetfr8t@hotmail.com>
Bob,
Are you going to be at Sun'N'Fun, and if so, are you going as a spectator or
a presenter?
Craig
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | An Architecture Question - Z13 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:02 PM 2/25/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Mac Arthur"
><jetfr8t@hotmail.com>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Are you going to be at Sun'N'Fun, and if so, are you going as a spectator or
>a presenter?
>
>Craig
Sorry, I don't do the big shows any more. The cost of being there
far outweighs the revenues generated by attending. We went to OSH
a couple of years ago (the first time in about 8 years after having
been there 12-years running). It was fun, interesting, and not terribly
expensive (we had use of a hotel room that wasn't needed by an exhibitor
over the weekend).
Sun'N'Fun is a very long way from here and generated even less revenue.
I went only once. There's only so much money I can spend just to have
fun . . . I'd rather spend it on new tools (or products to buy and
evaluate).
Bob . . .
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Odyssey % of charge |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> It would be interesting to put a battery black-box on those
> airplanes. I'm working a design for just such a critter with
> ...
> This is a desperately needed tool for closing the loop in the
> consumer/supplier relationship for batteries. So much bad blood
> has flowed and much opportunity for improvement lost for lack
> of data. The vast majority of discussions/deductions/accusations
> about battery life has been floobydust from the customers,
> interested observers AND manufacturers. A crapped battery is exceedingly
> difficult to deduce life history from a simple teardown inspection.
> Nobody is deserving of kudos or cabbages because there are no data
> from which understanding can grow.
Wow! I haven't heard anyone use the term Floobydust since my days
building analog amps back in the mid '70s.
But I think the battery manufacturers know a lot about how their
batteries live and die. It shouldn't be too hard to understand their
data and apply it to batteries in aircraft.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Baclup Battery monitor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Prather <mprather@spro.net>
Oh right.. I think I forgot that from the initial discussion. Thanks..
Matt-
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>I have two electric pumps One in each wing root. No mechanical fuel
>pump.
>
>The FI RV is being set up the same way.
>
>To switch tanks I simply switch pumps.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
>Prather
>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:03 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Baclup Battery monitor
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
>--> <mprather@spro.net>
>
>Is the Facet pump used continuously? Or only for takeoff, landing, or
>in the event of a main (engine driven) pump failure? If only
>intermittent duty, leave it out of the backup battery power budget. The
>chances of an alternator failure, and an engine driven pump failure on
>the same flight are exceedingly low...
>
>
>Matt-
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>>(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>
>>I measured the Facet and it was less than an amp...Can't remember what
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>the EI draws but I did measure it at the time.
>>The Zodiac is strictly a VFR airplane and most failure modes would
>>leave some juice left in the main battery.
>>
>>So I think I assumed about 20 minutes of flight on Batt #2.
>>
>>If I were re-doing it today I think the more modern diode (with lower
>>volt drop) would mean I could use a bigger battery.
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>Dave Morris "BigD"
>>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:44 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Baclup Battery monitor
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
>>--> <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>>
>>Facet pumps draw about 1.5A, don't they? And your EI draws how much?
>>3AH seems awfully small to me. I'm guessing the Duration vs Current
>>curve for that battery gives you 3A for 30 minutes. Is that enough?
>>
>>Dave Morris
>>www.N75UP.com
>>
>>At 10:22 AM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So my first battery is a 18AH and my backup is a 3AH, and is used to
>>>run one EI and a Facet fuel pump, nothing else.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 26
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott" <scott@randolphs.net>
I find myself thinking along very similar lines to Todd. I like the idea of
having options and turning off things to shed load doesn't seem like a big
problem. I've drawn up something with a 2nd master switch that engages a
2nd contactor and in it's 2nd position brings the 2nd alternator into the
system. The point about smoke in the cockpit is a good one I'll give some
though to, however. It brings up a nagging conern of my about the e-bus,
though. With my Garmin 430 drawing 3A for the GPS side and 10A for the
radio (when transmitting) it seems to me that it would blow the e-bus feed
fuse if I hit the transmit button. Now I fully realize that transmitting is
not the best way to conserve battery, but a quick word to let ATC know
what's up or even an accidental (habitual?) bump of the transmit switch
having the potential to take down what remains of my electical system
through that fuse seems scary. Just the GPS and my EFIS and my Transponder
add up to about 7.5 Amps without the transmitter! If I go to a contactor
for the e-bus feed, then it might as well be another master it seems like,
no?
Message 27
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Switch Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
An argument for switching the ground lead, vs the hot side, unless a stuck-on condition
is dangerous? Just a thought...
-Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce McGregor <bruceflys@comcast.net>
Sent: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:54:14 -0500
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switch Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys@comcast.net>
FWIW, I found this message on the GlaStar e-mail group:
Just thought that I would pass this along for everyone's edification. I
noticed that my strobes were not working the other day so I checked the
fuses and sure enough, the strobe fuse was blown. I replaced the fuse and it
popped as soon as I flipped the master switch on. I traced the wire from the
fuse panel to the toggle switch and there was no chafing or problems
visible. I disconnected the wire that goes to the strobe power supply from
the strobe switch and tried it again, POP! Now I'm looking right at the 18"
of wire that goes from the fuse panel to the strobe switch and it's
undamaged. The wire that goes to the power supply is disconnected and the
switch is in the OFF position yet there is a dead short! I removed the
switch and checked the continuity between the terminals and the body of the
switch and sure enough, the switch was shorted internally. I replaced the
switch with one of my spares and all was back to normal. I took the switch
apart and found that the moving contact rocker inside the switch was
touching the switch body. I'll include a photo of the switch guts for your
amusement, you can see the arcing on the switch cover. The switch is from
B&C and is a CARLING brand. I'll be sure that I carry a spare in my parts
bag.
Message 28
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Odyssey % of charge |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:27 PM 2/25/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > It would be interesting to put a battery black-box on those
> > airplanes. I'm working a design for just such a critter with
> > ...
> > This is a desperately needed tool for closing the loop in the
> > consumer/supplier relationship for batteries. So much bad blood
> > has flowed and much opportunity for improvement lost for lack
> > of data. The vast majority of discussions/deductions/accusations
> > about battery life has been floobydust from the customers,
> > interested observers AND manufacturers. A crapped battery is
> exceedingly
> > difficult to deduce life history from a simple teardown inspection.
> > Nobody is deserving of kudos or cabbages because there are no data
> > from which understanding can grow.
>
>Wow! I haven't heard anyone use the term Floobydust since my days
>building analog amps back in the mid '70s.
I think that's a Bob Pease original . . . I didn't hear it until
I became an avid reader of his monthly columns probably in the
80's . . . a good term I think for labeling intellectual babble
masquerading as fact.
>But I think the battery manufacturers know a lot about how their
>batteries live and die. It shouldn't be too hard to understand their
>data and apply it to batteries in aircraft.
In the lab, yes. Lightbulbs are the same way. I just finished
a song and dance routine to the FAA hand-cranked organ to subsitute
#327LSV (25,000 hour) lamps for the #327 (4,000 hr) in some places
on our airplanes. Seems customers are seeing a few hundreds of
hours . . . and since the L1011 went into the Everglades a few years
back, crews are forbidden to diddle with lightbulbs in flight, if at
all. So the low-life lamps are a serious regulatory dispatch item
and they're hoping that the better rated lamps will alleviate the
problem. The question not asked and answered was how lamp cycling
affects life and can we REALLY expect a 6x increase in lamp life
with the substitution?
I think we've made the FAA happy but now I'm starting more tests
on my own to do some cycle testing with the two part numbers side-by-side
for relative service life comparisons. I would not be surprised to
discover performance that falls far short of the customer's (and my
boss's expectations). At least I might be able to forewarn them as
opposed to waiting for a followup call from a surprised and unhappy
customer. If we called GE and asked how long their #327 will last in
our airplane, they wouldn't have a clue. You call Enersys or Concord
with the same question, they'd be silly to attempt a considered answer
because there's no data upon which one might consider. Further, they
have no idea how you will use/abuse their product.
I've discussed the battery black-box with a manufacturer who has
heartily endorsed the idea . . . both as a lowered cost warranty
adjustment tool but as a device for getting real numbers about
how their products are treated over LONG periods of time . . . not
in a laboratory or short term flight test program.
Message 29
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Switch Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:13 PM 2/25/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>An argument for switching the ground lead, vs the hot side, unless a
>stuck-on condition is dangerous? Just a thought...
>
>-Bill B
>
How would this be better? The same failure might then leave you with
some accessory running where you couldn't turn it off. Of course, this
gives rise to the secondary argument about having pullable breakers
accessible to pilots, etc.
I think I'd rather have it function exactly as described and get
OFF line and out of consideration. A second order consideration
in the failure tolerance equation is not to increase workload. The
switch died (albeit in what must be a really bizarre fashion) and
the fuse did its job. All done.
Bob . . .
Message 30
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> Occasionally, you need to purposely overcharge the battery
> to let the negative plate catch up with the positive plate. A
> couple times per year, you bring the battery up to 14.8 volts
> and let the current taper off to less than an amp. You then
> push in a constant current of about 4% of the amp-hr rating
> of the battery for about an hour. This cleans off the negative plate.
Bill, excellent post! What would be your recommendation for a charger to
accomplish this periodic overcharging method for cleaning the negative
plate? I suspect that this is what my PC680 needs after two years.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 719 hours
Maple Grove, MN
Message 31
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Alex Peterson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
>> Occasionally, you need to purposely overcharge the battery
>> to let the negative plate catch up with the positive plate. A
>
>
> Bill, excellent post! What would be your recommendation for a charger to
> accomplish this periodic overcharging method for cleaning the negative
> plate? I suspect that this is what my PC680 needs after two years.
Before you opt for an equalization charge make sure this is supported by
the manufacturer.
As for an equalization charge, you can accomplish it with any adjustable
power supply that will allow you to set the voltage to that specified by
the manufacturer for performing an equalization charge. Typically an
equalization charge takes around two hours over and above the time
required to bring the battery up to full charge.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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 32
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: LED position lights + strobe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Try: www.thorllc.net
Dennis Glaeser
7A Fuselage
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
Some months ago I saw a small outfit selling small LED position lights
which also accomodated a strobe light and would fit in the van's
recessed (enclosed) wingtips. I thought I saved a reference to it, but
can't find it. Does this ring a bell with any one?
--
Tom Sargent
engine
Message 33
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: LED position lights + strobe |
cc: sarg314@comcast.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil White" <philwhite9@aol.com>
Tom: www.GS-Air.com may be what you were referring to. I installed a
set of their LED lites w/strobes in the tips of my RV-10 wings about a
year ago. They have updated their product line recently with brighter
LED's that they state will better meet FAR-23 illumination rules.
Phil (RV-10 fuse) in IL
Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED position lights + strobe
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
Some months ago I saw a small outfit selling small LED position lights
which also accomodated a strobe light and would fit in the van's
recessed (enclosed) wingtips. I thought I saved a reference to it, but
can't find it. Does this ring a bell with any one?
--
Tom Sargent
Message 34
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Before we gloat...
OC it has more to do with manual entry of LAT/LONG and an error, than
the data base for one. I fly across the Atlantic several times a month and
I also have to enter LAT/LONG in the Honeywell Flt Management
Computer FMC, thru a CDU (control display unit). It is possible (easy) to
make a mistake, however there are several checks that we do before
departing. The main check is both pilots must together go over each lat /
long and compare the course, distance between way points as well as
total distance to the printed flight plan. Before departure, before
going oceanic the NAV position is compared with ground stations and
noted on the flight plan. If no ground based NAV is available we have to
look at all three GPS and IRS (inertial ref system) and compare them.
During the flight you keep track of position with a good old plotting chart
and flight plan. A check is made approaching, over and 10 minutes after
way points. All this is noted on the the chart and a postion report is
radioed via HF. This is the TIP of oceanic NAV. You all remember the
KAL007 that the Russians shot down. That was likely caused by miss
placed Lat/long entries and a switch not selected to the proper position.
>"The crew of C-GKFJ did not receive any special training before the
>flight on the use of the Apollo 820 GPS, nor did they receive a briefing
>on company procedures for long-range navigation."
This is the first problem. Before I went across the pond I had 2 weeks of
ground school, of which many days spent on long range nav, simulator
training and at least one flight with a training Captain over
the Atlantic. This poor crew was set up to fail.
So before you all point finger, if it can happen to a Pro crew, it can happen
to you or me. First I can't believe an Apollo 820 GPS is legal for long range
Oceanic flight. It would not meet the requirements to cross the Atlantic.
Second the out of date data base blows me away. With that said they would
have been better off using the old data base way points, even out of
date. They could check the lat/longs against a chart or flight plane.
Entering lat / longs much more error prone than entering a way point ID.
This is WAY more than an out of date data base. Training, following
standard procedures, cross checking and using all information available
info to name a few. Lesson learned for GA pilots is get training, stay
current and just don't follow one NAV source blindly if at all possible. If
they would have plotted it and just used their compass they would have
caught it earlier. It is easy for me to say in the comfort of my office, but
dead reckoning would have helped. The fault lies with management of
the airline and than the crew for flying where they had no business. GPS
is magic and amazing, they where right where they told it to be.
The data base was a contributing but not critical factor
George
>From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Gotcha!
>Date: Jan 02, 2006
>
>1/2/2005
>For all of us believers in the magic of GPS and modern avionics please
read
>the below cautionary tale:
>http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2003/A03F0114/A03F0114.asp
>
>
>My flight time over the ocean is not that great, but the terror that wells
>up when one has been out of sight of land for hours and is uncertain of
>their position is huge.
>
>
>Particularly note the diagram at the end of this article. Imagine the
>decision process / courage involved in making that greater than 270
degree
>turn to the right.
>OC
>
>
>PS: All pilots flying around IFR with out dated GPS data bases should
>read this article.
---------------------------------
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! --
|