AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Sun 02/26/06


Total Messages Posted: 15



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 01:24 AM - Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT (Gilles Tatry)
     2. 05:11 AM - Re: Re: Gotcha!  (BobsV35B@aol.com)
     3. 05:56 AM - Re: Baclup Battery monitor - Aux batt charge (Tim Olson)
     4. 07:33 AM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (Eric Newton)
     5. 09:27 AM - Re: Re: Gotcha! (Brian Lloyd)
     6. 09:30 AM - Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines (Bill Czygan)
     7. 11:36 AM - Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     8. 12:26 PM - Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT (Gilles Tatry)
     9. 12:40 PM - Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and Bob N.) ()
    10. 01:03 PM - Mic and Headset Jack Installation (SMITHBKN@aol.com)
    11. 02:05 PM - Re: Mic and Headset Jack Installation (SteinAir, Inc.)
    12. 07:28 PM - Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    13. 07:28 PM - Re: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and Bob N.) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    14. 07:35 PM - Re: Mic and Headset Jack Installation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    15. 07:43 PM - Re: Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines (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
    Time: 01:24:46 AM PST US
    From: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
    Subject: Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr> You are absolutely right, Bob! Except that I am not concerned with cold, but hot weather flying, when an open cockpitt is delightful... It is the worst case for engine temp, and also the worst for CHT reading. With the cold junction at the back of the instrument, CHT can read about 20 C less than reality. If the cold junction was in the engine compartment, reading might be somewhere in the middle of the scale, or lower, instead of close to, or even higher than the engine CHT limitation... Too late indeed to change the instrument, wich size is very specific: the panel is built and wired, I don't want to do it again. Moreover, I am highly interested indeed in this intellectual challenge, and learn a lot... Thank you for the help! Gilles ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:54 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 02:11 PM 2/22/2006 -0600, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net> >> >>Ok, maybe I'm being dense here, but here goes: >>If the 594 is used, no further cold junction compensation is necessary >>from the TC side is necessary. If the UMA instrument needs it, then I >>suggest dropping it. Use a simple microprocessor (about $1) and an LED >>display ($40?) instead. Some of the micros have an LED display driver >>already built-in, IIRC. Check out Freescale's website. > > I don't think the UMA bothers to use dynamic cold-junction > compensation. Their cold junction is at the back of the instrument > and the calibration is optimized at a 20C cockpit. So > ranges of temperatures that most pilots are willing to > endure in the cockpit is assumed to introduce insignificant > error. > > Possibly true for most enclosed cockpit/pilot combinations. > This is an open cockpit a/c where the owner says his > motivations to fly outweigh other pilot's inhibitions > (maybe he has a heated flight-suit). In any case, the > stated accuracy of the stock gage is found deficient for > his needs. > > The idea is to apply EXTERNAL signal conditioning using > the 594 and drive the instrument with whatever combination > of constant current/voltage seems best. This allows us > to provide offset/scale-factor pots that will permit > calibration to number probably better than the off-the-shelf > instrument. Dynamic cold-junction compensation comes with > the package. > > >>If he's married to the UMA, then enjoy the exercises 8-). > > That's the major rub. He has the instruments, they're both > physically attractive for their size (tiny panel) and round > dials but a tad short on performance. Just ONE of life's > little challenges . . . > > Bob . . .


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:11:35 AM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Gotcha!
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 2/26/2006 12:36:01 A.M. Central Standard Time, gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes: 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. Good Morning George, Don't get carried away with your indignation. There are many small, low cost, navigation devices that are approved for operation as sole source guidance for flight across the North Atlantic. Included among them are the Trimble 2000 Approach and Approach Plus, Garmin GNC 300 XL and the Apollo NMC 2001. There are probably many more, but that is NOT an area of my expertise. Incidentally, I do agree with you that errors are easy to make. I was flying long haul when we first got rid of the live navigators (we had errors with them too!) and went to INS navigation. I realize that current practice among air carriers is much more regulated than it was in my day, but I never liked the 'two man' loading scheme. I always loaded my FMC's by having one of us load from the chart and the other from the flight plan. (We only used two FMC's on my airline) After we had independently loaded the data, we then cross checked the two units to assure that both had the same data loaded. No cross filling allowed in my cockpit. You would be amazed at how many errors we found in the early computer generated flight plans! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:56:43 AM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: Baclup Battery monitor - Aux batt charge
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> >> The problem with diodes is they all have a forward volt drop, standard >> diodes are about 1 volt drop. So if your system charges at say 14.2 >> volts, your second battery will only see 13.2V. > > Which is a major issue for recharging the standby battery > to 100% of capacity. > > >> I believe the Shotkey (sp?) diode has a much lower drop...Althouigh I >> don't know what it is. >> I trimmed much of the thread for brevity on this single issue. I'm now flying in my RV-10 with a schematic as shown here: http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/electrical/N104CD_Electrical_Schematic_Rev5.pdf By using a couple of different diodes, (one was Eric's schottky), I've now got a system with a couple of benefits: * charges the aux battery through a schottky with a lower Vdrop at all times. * Powers the E-Bus from the Avionics bus, whenever the avionics bus is on. * Powers the E-Bus directly from the aux battery when E-Bus is on. I use the E-Bus switch during startup to start the EFIS and EIS before I crank the engine, and I get no Voltage drops rebooting my E-Bus items. After engine start, I fire up the avioinics bus, and the rest of my stuff comes online. I then shut OFF my E-Bus feed switch and if you trace back the wiring, you'll see that I don't lose power during the switch because of the diodes, and, I get the benefit of a diode-free path from the alternator to the Aux battery. So, even though the charging circuit is there with the schottky, I'll get the benefit of getting 100% voltage to the aux battery for a full charge. The rest of the system works great for me too. Some breakers, some fuses. I do use a keyswitch with my Lightspeed and a Mag, which works great, but I couldn't illustrate the switching of the circuit using the keyswitch model, so I drew it as switches and it's innacurate. The Aux Alternator section is currently not installed. I'm waiting for Plane-Power to come out with their aux alternator to save a bunch of cost. It would be a nice thing to have, but actually with the large set of aux batteries and the wiring that I have, it's nearing overkill to add that to the system unless I plan not to land when I have a problem. Sorry to chop the thread. I've changed the subject line to accomodate. Tim Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:33:31 AM PST US
    From: "Eric Newton" <enewton57@cableone.net>
    Subject: Re: LED position lights + strobe
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Newton" <enewton57@cableone.net> Could be this one: http://www.creativair.com/cva/product_info.php?cPath=3D21&products_id=3D44 Eric


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:27:32 AM PST US
    From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
    Subject: Re: Gotcha!
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. Well, there is training and there is training. It is quite possible for the captain and crew to ensure their own training and to make a plan for how to deal with contingencies. It would make a lot of sense for the crew to think about their lack of training and then go get the information they needed. A lot has been written on the subject and the basics of navigation are well understood. That is what I did and I had no problems with long-range, over-water navigation. It is when you believe in your computers too much that you start to have problems. > 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. When making a ferry flight you can get away with a lot. I have flown my Comanche across the Atlantic twice, once non-stop. There are a lot of opportunities to screw up in 11 hours with nothing to look at but ocean. None of my equipment was "approved" for long-range ocean flight but it served me adequately well. My primary electronic nav was a LORAN which I knew would stop working when it got out of range of the Canadian chain and would remain unusable until I got within range of the North Atlantic chain. My HF was an old Collins KWM-2 that I had retuned to work in the aviation bands. The Canadian authorities laughed saying they hadn't seen someone use a KWM-2 for many years. I had designed an e-bus to ensure that I would have my electronic nav gear in case of a loss of the main electrical system. The Canadian DOT inspector at Moncton felt that my e-bus design was pretty neat and eliminated the need for a separate battery-operated LF DF radio. So my real primary nav was DR backed up with LORAN and using ADF and VOR for secondary backup. Everything worked as planned, including the loss of LORAN navigation about 5 hours into the flight. The only surprise is that we didn't get LORAN back until we were almost to Ireland. By then I had VOR. ADF surprised me by working from mid-Atlantic. (BBC used to have a very high-power LW station at 201 KHz if I recall. The programming wasn't great but the signal kept the ADF needle pointed where we were going.) Regardless, my DR planning got me to my destination within 30 seconds of flight-plan time. I kept a navigation log that cross-referenced DR and LORAN data. When the LORAN quit working we were on DR-only but had good intermediate nav data to start from. When I finally got my LORAN back we were only about 5 miles off-course. DR works a lot better than most people give it credit for. And, yes, I would do it again using the same equipment. -- 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 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:30:32 AM PST US
    From: Bill Czygan <bczygan@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Czygan <bczygan@yahoo.com> Bob, Thank you for the kind welcome. Yes, I am new to this list and to aircraft construction. I am an Extra class Amateur Radio Operator (Ham), so I am supposed to know a few basic things about electricity. At my age (55), it is a race to see if the learning, or the forgetting, is winning. Thank you for taking the time to direct me to the right information. You, and the members, have put together a valuable resource here. It is obvious that I need to do some serious studying to come up to speed, enough to even pose useful questions. That I will do right now. Meanwhile, I have put together a BLOG to help UL pilots transition to Sport Pilot. One of the things I am doing is advising them on how to transition their UL aircraft. Many of them will need to create electrical systems, as I will. If you don't mind, I would like to provide a link to this list for them. My site is here: http://sptraining.blogspot.com/ Again, thank you for the help. Yours, Bill Czygan AA8MF Quicksilver MXIIA --------------------------------- Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:36:56 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 10:13 AM 2/26/2006 +0100, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry" ><gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr> > >You are absolutely right, Bob! >Except that I am not concerned with cold, but hot weather flying, when an >open cockpitt is delightful... >It is the worst case for engine temp, and also the worst for CHT reading. >With the cold junction at the back of the instrument, CHT can read about 20 >C less than reality. If the cold junction was in the engine compartment, >reading might be somewhere in the middle of the scale, or lower, instead of >close to, or even higher than the engine CHT limitation... >Too late indeed to change the instrument, wich size is very specific: the >panel is built and wired, I don't want to do it again. >Moreover, I am highly interested indeed in this intellectual challenge, and >learn a lot... >Thank you for the help! Have you the tools and where-with-all to get the measurements we need? 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
    Time: 12:26:46 PM PST US
    From: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr>
    Subject: Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr> I will probably be able to send you the measurements shortly, thanks to well-equipped friends. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:30 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 10:13 AM 2/26/2006 +0100, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry" >><gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr> >> >>You are absolutely right, Bob! >>Except that I am not concerned with cold, but hot weather flying, when an >>open cockpitt is delightful... >>It is the worst case for engine temp, and also the worst for CHT reading. >>With the cold junction at the back of the instrument, CHT can read about >>20 >>C less than reality. If the cold junction was in the engine compartment, >>reading might be somewhere in the middle of the scale, or lower, instead >>of >>close to, or even higher than the engine CHT limitation... >>Too late indeed to change the instrument, wich size is very specific: the >>panel is built and wired, I don't want to do it again. >>Moreover, I am highly interested indeed in this intellectual challenge, >>and >>learn a lot... >>Thank you for the help! > > Have you the tools and where-with-all to get > the measurements we need? > > Bob . . . > > >


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:40:38 PM PST US
    From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey
    and Bob N.) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> Dear Bob N.: I have no Idea what you are talking about again and why its relavant, but God Bless you. ** COMMENTS BELOW (..............) ; Cheers George ** >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> >Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and Bob N.) >>--> 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. ** (BOB,CALL TRANSPO, TALK TO ENGINEERS:1800-TRANSPO/800-872-6776) ** <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. ** (BOB, I have an EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT; Don't give a RIP about Part 25 or 23) ** >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, What? U lost me (again), call Transpo, they'll help your UNDERSTANDING) ** Bob . . . ** (George, I am done. Peace) ** --------------------------------- Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:03:51 PM PST US
    From: SMITHBKN@aol.com
    Subject: Mic and Headset Jack Installation
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SMITHBKN@aol.com Group, I've read the AeroElectric connection, searched the archives, etc. but can't develop an answer to the following question: when I went to install my jacks I found that I could either drill a ~3/8" hole that would allow the threaded post of the jack to pass through, or b) drill a slightly larger hole that would allow the threaded post PLUS the small shoulder to pass through. I purchased some of the isolation washers from B&C and they slip easily over the threaded post of the jack but won't go down over the shoulder at the base of the post. If I use the ~3/8" hole it appears the threaded portion of the jack could contact the panel as it passes through it, even with use of the isolation washers. So I guess I'm not sure what the isolation washers are doing. Need some help ......, Thanks, Jeff RV-7A smithbkn@aol.com


    Message 11


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:05:17 PM PST US
    From: "SteinAir, Inc." <stein@steinair.com>
    Subject: Mic and Headset Jack Installation
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "SteinAir, Inc." <stein@steinair.com> If you have the higher end jacks, then the "shoulder" on the threaded part of the jack is still part of the center ring or threaded portion. The goal of the insulated washers is to completely isolate that part of the jack (center ring) from the metal panel and airframe ground... It's still a good idea to use the washers on the jacks, so drill the hold large enough to allow the insualting washers. Cheers, Stein. >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of >SMITHBKN@aol.com >Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:02 PM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mic and Headset Jack Installation > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SMITHBKN@aol.com > >Group, > >I've read the AeroElectric connection, searched the archives, etc. >but can't >develop an answer to the following question: when I went to >install my jacks I >found that I could either drill a ~3/8" hole that would allow the threaded >post of the jack to pass through, or b) drill a slightly larger >hole that would >allow the threaded post PLUS the small shoulder to pass through. > >I purchased some of the isolation washers from B&C and they slip >easily over >the threaded post of the jack but won't go down over the shoulder >at the base >of the post. > >If I use the ~3/8" hole it appears the threaded portion of the jack could >contact the panel as it passes through it, even with use of the isolation >washers. So I guess I'm not sure what the isolation washers are doing. > >Need some help ......, Thanks, > >Jeff >RV-7A >smithbkn@aol.com > >


    Message 12


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:28:37 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:24 PM 2/26/2006 +0100, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Tatry" ><gilles.tatry@wanadoo.fr> > >I will probably be able to send you the measurements shortly, thanks to >well-equipped friends. Great! Bob . . .


    Message 13


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:28:37 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Startup (Mickey and Bob N.)
    Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey
    and Bob N.) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Startup (Mickey and Bob N.) At 12:37 PM 2/26/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> > >Dear Bob N.: > > I have no Idea what you are talking about again and why its relavant, > but God Bless you. Proof is for math problems and courts. Understanding is what real teachers offer. Engineers are dependent upon understanding for responsible conduct of their craft. > > > ** > (BOB,CALL TRANSPO, TALK TO ENGINEERS:1800-TRANSPO/800-872-6776) >** If they have understanding to offer, the block diagrams, schematics, test results, etc are in order. That's what I offer and I expect no less. Every simple idea I've had to offer was explained at length, often illustrated and in many cases based on lessons-learned from the past 40 years of cooking (and burning a few fingers) in this particular kitchen. > > <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. > > ** > (BOB, I have an EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT; Don't give a RIP about Part 25 > or 23) > ** > I wasn't suggesting you should. It was an ILLUSTRATION of just how much we've come to depend on tools (and faith in the talent of others) that started out with high ideals but failed in the marketplace. All the analysis in the world does not replace the repeatable experiment. Unfortunately, there is so much faith in the up-front, computer aided analysis that we've totally divested ourselves of any kind of skunk works. At the same time, we're a bit dismayed that customer aircraft have become IR&D tools for fixing problems that analysis failed to reveal. You seem to think I'm trying to convince you of something . . . or sell you something. The only reason I offer you anything is as a courtesy from one engineer to another . . . but gee, without all the alphabet soup after my name, perhaps my biggest failing is knowing the right kind of words to use. I'm only trying to share my experience and observations based on that experience. The only folks who's approval I MUST have are those who send me money and expect a fair value in return. Everything else is the fun of considering simple-ideas . . . . and I DO enjoy it. I'm sorry if it's upsetting for you. I AM distressed that you don't seem to grasp what I'm driving at . . . a serious failing on my part as a teacher. Hmmmm . . . did you buy a copy of the 'Connection from me? Do you want your money back? > >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, What? U lost me (again), call Transpo, they'll help your > UNDERSTANDING) > ** If that's what you did, then are you then a spokesperson for Transpo or have you developed an independent but supporting professional opinion you can share? Have you seen schematics, design philosophies, parts selection criteria? Would you/they share that with us? I get access to this stuff when I approve products for my boss, it's called preliminary and critical design reviews. But since you're going experimental, do you consider such tools superfluous, perhaps a waste of time? Is it no longer necessary that we understand how things work? Just field the pitch over the counter at OSH and plunk down the credit card? I may have to ask your forgiveness. I consider my OBAM aircraft customers just as deserving of the best-I-know-how-to-do as my TC aircraft customers. Tell you what. I'm about done with the trade study on the MC33092A. The task is see if there's some way we can adapt this marvelous piece of technology into a modern replacement for all the external regulators flying. Look over the data sheet and craft your own trade study. If it's at all suited, how can we adapt it to this task? Are there attractive alternatives? Are all the bang-for-the-buck-bullets at the front of the data supported by explanation from within and and at least supported if not confirmed by your independent analysis? How do the features cited add value? Are any of the features nothing more than chrome on the bumpers and fox tails on the antennas? I've discovered some interesting points of design in the MC33022A that offer interesting hypothesis on behaviors of failed alternators cited recently on the List. It's been an enlightening exercise. When yours is done, send me a .pdf and I'll put it up on AeroElectric.com along with my own. You've tossed in tons of cabbages and tomatoes which I've attempted to field with thoughtful, illustrative answers. May I suggest this friendly competition. Let the List vote on the work product. Looser sends the winner a copy of his favorite book. If you 'dust' me, I'll be pleased to send you a copy of "The Professional Amateur" by T.A. Boyd. It's a biography of Charles F. Kettering - a scientist worthy of much respect and emulation . . . one of my personal heros. 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 14


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:35:33 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Mic and Headset Jack Installation
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 04:02 PM 2/26/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SMITHBKN@aol.com > >Group, > >I've read the AeroElectric connection, searched the archives, etc. but can't >develop an answer to the following question: when I went to install my >jacks I >found that I could either drill a ~3/8" hole that would allow the threaded >post of the jack to pass through, or b) drill a slightly larger hole that >would >allow the threaded post PLUS the small shoulder to pass through. > >I purchased some of the isolation washers from B&C and they slip easily over >the threaded post of the jack but won't go down over the shoulder at the base >of the post. That isn't what they're supposed to do. >If I use the ~3/8" hole it appears the threaded portion of the jack could >contact the panel as it passes through it, even with use of the isolation >washers. So I guess I'm not sure what the isolation washers are doing. Drill a 1/2" hole. Put the extruded washer on the jack first, extrusion facing up. Insert jack in hole from behind and place flat insulating washer on over the jack's barrel followed by the flat metal washer and finally the screw. The insulating washers will sandwich the panel material while the extrusion keeps the jack centered in the hole and isolated from the panel. Bob . . .


    Message 15


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:43:39 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Stroke Engines
    Subject: Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Stroke Engines At 09:29 AM 2/26/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Czygan <bczygan@yahoo.com> > >Bob, > Thank you for the kind welcome. Yes, I am new to this list and to > aircraft construction. I am an Extra class Amateur Radio Operator (Ham), > so I am supposed to know a few basic things about electricity. At my age > (55), it is a race to see if the learning, or the forgetting, is winning. > Thank you for taking the time to direct me to the right information. You, > and the members, have put together a valuable resource here. It is > obvious that I need to do some serious studying to come up to speed, > enough to even pose useful questions. That I will do right now. > Meanwhile, I have put together a BLOG to help UL pilots transition to > Sport Pilot. One of the things I am doing is advising them on how to > transition their UL aircraft. Many of them will need to create electrical > systems, as I will. If you don't mind, I would like to provide a link to > this list for them. My site is here: > > http://sptraining.blogspot.com/ > > Again, thank you for the help. You're correct . . . no EASY way to do it. The Vulcan mind-meld is not yet in anyone's bag of tricks. I got my novice ticket in spring of '56 in the 7th grade. Did a science class demo that failed miserably. Dropped a wire out the second story window for an antenna. My demo partner a few miles away heard me fine but noise from florescent lights wilted my SX-28 like a pansy in the Mojave sun. The website is an impressive effort. I wish you the best of luck helping this new effort get spooled up. The world can always use more pilots. 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 >




    Other Matronics Email List Services

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

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

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