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 |
|
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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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
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! --
|