Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:04 AM - Re: Strange people behavior in debate (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:31 AM - Nuckoll-heads (Ernest Christley)
3. 07:34 AM - Re: Re: George (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:39 AM - Re: George (James H Nelson)
5. 08:02 AM - Re: Re: George (Bruce Gray)
6. 08:02 AM - Re: Changing the mag switches out for emag and pmag (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:06 AM - Re: Re: George (Richard Riley)
8. 08:24 AM - Re: Strange people behavior in debate (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:25 AM - Re: Changing the mag switches out for emag and pmag (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
10. 08:46 AM - Re: Changing the mag switches out for emag and pmag (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 09:22 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 03/02/06 (Bob Darrah)
12. 12:58 PM - Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae (PTACKABURY@aol.com)
13. 02:32 PM - Re: Re: George (James H Nelson)
14. 03:00 PM - Re: Strange people behavior in debate (Bill Schlatterer)
15. 04:47 PM - Re: Seminar in the South (Rodney Dunham)
16. 06:56 PM - Re: Re: Seminar in the South (Bret Smith)
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: Strange people behavior in debate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:06 PM 3/2/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>Any *specific* comment where I said something NOT true? Speak up.
>
Okay . . .
>Read everything Bob has written you will find Bob's not a fan of
>I-VR alternators and does not recommend using them. He will play
>along, but his heart is not into it, OK. That is cool. Bob does
>not support or know much about I-VR's by his own admission.
Not true: This isn't about being a "fan" of anything. The aviation
community both commercial and military have adopted design
goals that I as supplier to those industries am expected
to meet. If a customer walks in the door looking to purchase
apples, you don't try to sell them oranges.
>Bob has no incentive or desire to really promote and understand I-
>VR alternators. If he did he would have tested them by now. Look
>at the Plane Power Guy, he put effort into it, produces an I-VR's
>with a self contained crow-bar. Brilliant. Of course he charges
>a lot for his alternators, but theres NO reason we can not
>modify our stock alternators the same way. Would Bob lead
>the effort? (NO) Why? It would take business away from his
>buddies at B&C. We all understand that and that is cool.
Not true: Since day-one, I've said that I cannot recommend
the IR alternator because I could deduce no way to incorporate
them into systems that comply with the design goals I've
cited many times: Ability to turn ON/OFF at will without
regard to operating conditions and free of concerns for
damage to the alternator or other equipment.
You accuse me of distorting science as a means to
protect the financial well being of B&C? Shame on you
sir! I AM testing some alternators to confirm the
design parameters under which some new products will
be offered that meet the design goals cited.
> There are lots of people who use I-VR alternators with no add on
>OV protection. If that is YOU than you are part of We or Us.
>If this does not describe YOU, than you are not part of the group.
>Don't YOU be so presumptuous in thinking I was talking about
>you. YOU know who YOU are. ;-) (am I emoticon-ing enough?)
Not true: There are people who don't wear helmets while riding
motorcycles and others who do not wear seat belts
while driving . . . and the vast majority of those
individuals are alive and well today. But at the next
roll of the dice . . .
OV protection has been a part of engine driven power
sources in aircraft (and other $high$ systems) for
decades. This is because the risk of OV events is not
zero. The vast majority of those who fly without it
are no different than those who choose not to incorporate
risk mitigation activities in their cars or on their
motorcycles. They makes their choices and they takes
their chances. Please don't paint me as the heretic because
I don't RECOMMEND them in their current form.
Folks building OBAM airplanes may do as they wish based on
any logic that pleases them. When asked, I've only
explained my design decisions and recommendations based
on design goals established by the customers who
have seen fit to help me raise two families and pay my bills.
If folks here on the List find the work products of other
suppliers attractive, I would not discourage their use
except when they're not supported by common sense.
For example, the EXP-Bus probably performs exactly
as advertised and I perceive no safety issues. The common
sense question here is, "what are you getting for your
$time$ and are there alternative solutions with attractive
features." But to suggest that I would beat up on anyone
for installing an EXP-Bus or a stock IR alternator is
contrary to fact.
>
>I do speak for a LARGE group. The group thinks that I-VR are
>safe and can be used with out all the sensational, Oh My Gosh OV
>stories. In a year and 1/2, the only OV reported were below 16
>to 18 volts!!! Many times they where precipitated by the pilot doing
>something dumb like turning the alternator OFF/ON under load. FACT
Not true. One individual of several reported voltmeter readings
that may in fact have pegged the instrument. Given the damage
to his battery, it's the opinion of myself and others that
the alternator suffered lost of voltage and was only limited
in output current by the magnetics of the device.
Others have reported alternator failures that produced
damage to avionics. I did not embellish those reports.
To brush them aside as overblown or misinterpreted
is tantamount to saying those victims are dishonest
and that I'm dishonest for promoting automatic protection
that has been a standard of the industry for decades.
>
> *Crow-Bar and OV relay: This violates all the
> warnings the alternator manufacture recommends, ie do not
> disconnect the b-lead from the battery. I take warnings to heart
> and try not to out think it. IT SAY NO B-lead disconnect.
Not true: B-lead disconnection under certain circumstances has been
shown to be hazardous to the alternator (for reasons we're
going to explore in the regulator trade-study paper). This
is a byproduct of a system installed with the intent of
providing OV protection for the rest of the airplane . . . I
did not even consider risks to the alternator itself. My bad.
This is why Z-24 was TEMPORARILY withdrawn until more suitable
techniques can be crafted.
>
> *Cooling Air- Bob says NO, but that is for alternators with NO I-
> VR. Fact electronics like to be cool for longer life and greater
> reliability.
Not true. I have never said that it was bad to cool any
device but at the same time, it's useful to know when
cooling is useful or necessary. The alternators for which
I have the most experience are externally regulated and
therefore do not contain devices common to internally
regulated alternators. If you're suggesting that the
IR alternator will always benefit from cooling air because
it incorporates the relatively fragile regulator, I cannot
dispute it.
My advice for cooling decisions has always been to consider
how many builders before us have suffered failures properly
attributed to lack of cooling. When in doubt, thermocouple
studies of the installed alternator are always in order.
Measurements trump conjecture any day.
I've never seen a blast tube installed on an automobile's
alternator so I've assumed that these devices were as robust
after regulators went inside as they were when regulators
were outside. I.e. I have no compelling observations to suggest
we have extraordinary concerns for cooling . . . for EITHER
style of machine. If you have data suggesting something
else, please share it with us.
>
> *Warning Light- Bob attacks the (I-VR internal) warning light and
> never mentioned it. OK I'll do some boasting. I am the only one that
> promoted and recommended its use. Bob was typically negative
> and said it would not work if the VR failed. WRONG (his bius showing)
Not true. As the regulator trade study will show, the warning light
system built into the internal regulator is on the same
chunk of silicon as regulator controls and other features.
I have not "attacked" it, only suggested that stresses that
might cause the regulator to misbehave and equally present
for the warning light functions. The design goals for my
other customers called for separation of functionality
between control, indication and protection.
Yes, I have an opinion for the reasons cited. It seems a logical
choice.
>
> *Fuse on B-Lead- A CB on this lead is important. Not as
> important for an E-VR. I suppose a crow-bar OV relay is a
> substitute for a CB you can manually trip. However item (1) is
> don't use a crow bar OV relay. Fuses are great in the right
> place.
Note true. There are two different considerations: Fuses protect
wires such that failures in one wire do not propagate
through to other parts of a system. The pullable breaker
for OV protection is the same disconnect mechanism
as a b-lead contactor.
The breaker must be operated manually, the contactor may
be manual or automatic. It was the manual operation of the b-lead
contactor that brought load-dump vulnerabilities of
the IR alternator to light. Those issues will be addressed
and solved. The problem with simply pulling a b-lead breaker
will be the same as with the orignal Z-24 implementation:
Rapidly rising voltage across the contacts may ignite an
arc that won't go out. No big deal in the metal can under
the cowl. Really BIG deal in a plastic housed breaker on the panel.
Further, disconnection of a runaway alternator will protect
the rest of the airplane but results in destruction of
the alternator. The field winding for sure is toast. The
diodes are at risk too.
It's better that we figure out a way to bring things
to an orderly, quiet, low energy state such that nothing
burns, the pilot is advised of the need to switch to
Plan-B, and only the failed component need be replaced.
There were advantages cited for getting the b-lead
breaker off the panel. To bring it back into the cockpit
just to allow a pilot to do manual disconnection during
an OV event seems a step backwards when solutions
to protecting the alternator from its own load-dump
are at hand. And this goes back to the originally
stated design goal of carefree ON/OFF control of the
alternator at any time.
(If folks choose to give up this goal in favor of
George's recommendations, please know that you're
still welcome in my house. I have friends and relatives
who don't wear their helmets and seat belts either
but I don't rag them about it . . . and MOST of them
will probably lead happy, injury free lives.)
>
>I am not going to let bullies bully me. OK. I am gathering just
>arguing my point passionately and not agreeing with Bob N.
>is my biggest crime.
Your transgression is the promulgation of bad science based on
faith combined with your accusations of dishonorable behavior
on the part of those who have shared their experiences with
us. I've invited you to join me in an analysis of the
functionality of an exemplar internal regulator. I even
offered to make it a friendly competition.
You reacted by changing the rules of engagement, declaring
me in default under the new rules, claimed victory for
yourself and suggested I write for a mailing address for
the prize. That was pretty amazing . . . the next time
would you do that in slow motion? Perhaps we can see
exactly how the rabbit got into that hat.
>
>I am not naive, this is BOB's LIST. Its unfortunate its named
>after Bob's company. We don't need to change the name,
>just the attitude; all opinions, even non-aeroelectrical opinions are
>welcomed. If Bob or the list thinks that open discussion is
>welcomed they are not being honest.
Isn't that what we're doing now?
>
>We have the 1000lb Gorilla in the corner.
>Bring the banana and say nice monkey, all is well.
>Let the monkey throw poo on you and say nothing or else.
>Yell at the poo throwing monkey, you will get ripped apart.
Not true: I've never ripped anyone. I've only offered alternative
views along with the simple-ideas that supported them.
When you could not respond in kind, you pointed fingers,
yelled unkindly things, and accused me and others of dishonorable
behavior. Your true colors have been enshrined in the archives
forever. You paint my behavior as trying to be king of the
sandbox but you're the only one throwing sand. My mother
would ban kids from the sandbox for throwing sand.
Invitation to debate: Please describe for us your
interpretation of the warning/protective features in the
MC33092 regulator chip and how well they conform to
the classic aircraft systems design goals. If not, what
goals should replace them?
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: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Matte, there's a fund-raiser idea. Print up some "I'm a Nuckoll-Head"
t-shirts.
Oh, the humor. 8*)
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:22 PM 3/2/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
><rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>
>Peter,
>
>Of course you're right. Sorry for the tirade. I'll try to do better in the
>future.
>
>But... I consider myself part of the Aeroelectric Connection family. I
>consider Bob the head of that family. In any family worth belonging to, when
>someone attacks your kin you don't just sit idly by and expect your family
>member to "defend himself". You jump, and I do mean JUMP to that family
>member's aid. Bob has earned our respect!!! He has earned our loyalty. I do
>not consider it any bother at all to jump to his aid. He ain't heavy, he's
>my brother :o)
>
>Bob, if you're reading this, my wife still wants to bake you a cake for all
>the help you've been to her husband. If you're ever in eastern Tennessee or
>even northern Alabama or Georgia, you've got an open invitation to the guest
>room, dinner and your favorite cake. She makes this thing she calls an
>eclaire cake that is to die for! Of course, Mrs Nuckolls is also invited.
Your respect and kindness is appreciated. I will endeavor
to be worthy of both. Actually, Dr. Dee and I have been
considering a trek to Atlanta for a weekend seminar soon.
It's been two years since we visited that part of the country.
Alternatively, we could do it closer to home for you. Where
do you live?
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Hi Rodney,
Thank you for your reply to "jetpilot". You put into words what
many of us think. I find that when he is on the list, I now just delete
his message and move on. Bob has helped me on several occasions
including phone calls to him direct. George needs his own list (and
lithium) where he can do "his thing" on internal regulated alternators.
Jim Nelson
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: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
I don't know about George, but I've found that I also learn things from
outspoken people. Just because they voice their concerns with some venom
doesn't invalidate the ideas they are trying to convey.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H
Nelson
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:29 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: George
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Hi Rodney,
Thank you for your reply to "jetpilot". You put into words what
many of us think. I find that when he is on the list, I now just delete
his message and move on. Bob has helped me on several occasions
including phone calls to him direct. George needs his own list (and
lithium) where he can do "his thing" on internal regulated alternators.
Jim Nelson
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: Changing the mag switches out for emag and pmag |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
and pmag
At 04:22 PM 3/2/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sparrowhawk2@mac.com
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I'm ditching my old Slick mags and going to one Emag and one Pmag. My
> >> wiring from switches to mags is from the old Z-9 drawing (same mag
> >> wiring as in
> >> Z-11). Emagair says that you should switch off power to both the
> >> emag and the pmag because there is a drain on the battery when they
> >> are powered up, so direct wiring from the battery bus without a
> >> switch is out. Both
> >> ignitions should be ON during start, as opposed to the disabling of
> >> the right mag during startup now. Is there a way to retain the
> >> switches I have, including the momentary "start" function on the left
> >> mag switch rather than replace the switches with 1-3 switches as in
> >> Z-12?
Emags are a unique product in that as the factory points out,
have TWO switchable functions: Power and control. Their installation
manuals suggest separate switches but in a quest for the minimalist
panel, I crafted the drawing for P-Mags at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11E.pdf Figure Z-33.
. . . now, be aware that the sequence of switching functions
depicted have been commented on by the good folks at E-magair
suggesting that switch movements should bring power on first
followed by activating the magneto.
My wiring diagram shows the opposite sequence, ignition "active"
first followed by supporting power. The reason is quite simple:
There are separate but divergent interests in the ownership
and operation of the p-mag:
(1) When sitting at the end of the runway doing a pre-flight,
the PILOT'S interest is "are the built in alternators for
each P-Mag functioning?" By wiring as I've suggested,
moving the switch from full up to the mid position deprives
a P-Mag of electrical support and (if the run-up RPMS are
high enough), the ignition will not falter when dropped
to the mid position. Of course, the opposite ignition
needs to be completely OFF at this time.
Pre-flight test would be:
RUN-UP RPM . . . . . Set
L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF
R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position)
Note engine does not falter
L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position)
R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF
Note engine does not falter
Both IGN Switches . . . . BAT
(2) A secondary interest is what might be called the
maintenance mode for ground ops where the mechanic wants
to have the systems powered but inactive for using a
P-mag's built-in timing features -OR- for hand propping
the engine where again, it's useful to be able to hear
the timing buzzer.
In this mode, you MUST have battery power available to
the P-Mags even when in the inactive state. The diagram
shows a third switch (accessible through the oil check/
filler door?) that places temporary power on both
ignitions while leaving absolute control over activity
in the hands of whoever has access to pilot's controls
on the panel.
If one chooses this architecture, then a light on the
panel should be included to alert the pilot should
the switch be left in the maintenance position. Not
a big risk from a fight operations and safety perspective
but it WOULD run the battery down.
In answer to your specific question, it's my recommendation
that you get a 2-10 switch for the P-mag. Since the E-mag
is electrically dependent, a 2-3 switch to handle both sides
of the E-mag's switching needs is called for. Your existing
mag switches are not suited to this task.
Bob . . .
OOPS! I just noted that a narrative for Figure Z-33 didn't
find its way into the published work. Rats! . . . just sent
Rev 11 back to the printers for another 1000 books. I'll get
the Z-notes updated and publish an errata sheet. I'm glad
you brought up this topic. It showed me where my homework
needs some attention.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
At 07:28 AM 3/3/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
>
>Hi Rodney,
> Thank you for your reply to "jetpilot".
Thank you James. Now all the "George" messages make sense. I
couldn't figure it out, since I'd filtered jetpilot a long time ago
and didn't see what started this whole thing again.
do not archive.
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: | Strange people behavior in debate |
Cc: "BPA" <BPA@bpaengines.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:01 PM 3/2/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BPA" <BPA@BPAENGINES.COM>
>
>What?
>
>Oh yeah, do not archive :)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 3:07 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strange people behavior in debate
<snip>
Dear "BPA",
I just noticed that what appeared to be a double-posting by
George was in fact an alternative posting by yourself as
a some kind of a favor . . .
Be advised that this is frowned upon by all Lists. There
are a limited number of reasons for someone to mount
this kind of activity. They include but are not limited
to: a ruse to get around the "kill files" of individual members
of the list (which, of course encourages them to add you
to the "kill file" too). Your truncated identification is also
disturbing. We all like to believe we're in partnership
with honorable people having common interests with no reasons
to be secretive about who we are or what we are about.
I'd like to believe that you've subscribed to this List
because you find value in what transpires here and/or you
have knowledge to contribute. A search of my archives shows
that this is your first post to the list under the
pseudonym. I'd be pleased to welcome you to the List and
to know you as I know virtually everyone else. I would be
saddened to learn that your purpose for participating here
is to provide a second conduit for George's rants.
Kindest regards,
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: | Changing the mag switches out for emag and pmag |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Not sure I understand the need for the test switch.
If I understand correctly to enter "Test mode" one simply needs to leave
the P lead grounded (off) and apply power, in this case turn on the
master. Of course now the whole ship is powered up but this seems a
fairly small inconvenience considering that timing is a pretty simple
affair.
Am I correct in my understanding here?
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Changing the mag switches out for emag
and pmag
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net> and pmag
At 04:22 PM 3/2/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sparrowhawk2@mac.com
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I'm ditching my old Slick mags and going to one Emag and one Pmag.
> >> My wiring from switches to mags is from the old Z-9 drawing (same
> >> mag wiring as in Z-11). Emagair says that you should switch off
> >> power to both the emag and the pmag because there is a drain on the
> >> battery when they are powered up, so direct wiring from the battery
> >> bus without a switch is out. Both ignitions should be ON during
> >> start, as opposed to the disabling of the right mag during startup
> >> now. Is there a way to retain the switches I have, including the
> >> momentary "start" function on the left mag switch rather than
> >> replace the switches with 1-3 switches as in Z-12?
Emags are a unique product in that as the factory points out,
have TWO switchable functions: Power and control. Their installation
manuals suggest separate switches but in a quest for the minimalist
panel, I crafted the drawing for P-Mags at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11E.pdf Figure Z-33.
. . . now, be aware that the sequence of switching functions
depicted have been commented on by the good folks at E-magair
suggesting that switch movements should bring power on first
followed by activating the magneto.
My wiring diagram shows the opposite sequence, ignition "active"
first followed by supporting power. The reason is quite simple:
There are separate but divergent interests in the ownership
and operation of the p-mag:
(1) When sitting at the end of the runway doing a pre-flight,
the PILOT'S interest is "are the built in alternators for
each P-Mag functioning?" By wiring as I've suggested,
moving the switch from full up to the mid position deprives
a P-Mag of electrical support and (if the run-up RPMS are
high enough), the ignition will not falter when dropped
to the mid position. Of course, the opposite ignition
needs to be completely OFF at this time.
Pre-flight test would be:
RUN-UP RPM . . . . . Set
L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF
R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position)
Note engine does not falter
L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position)
R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF
Note engine does not falter
Both IGN Switches . . . . BAT
(2) A secondary interest is what might be called the
maintenance mode for ground ops where the mechanic wants
to have the systems powered but inactive for using a
P-mag's built-in timing features -OR- for hand propping
the engine where again, it's useful to be able to hear
the timing buzzer.
In this mode, you MUST have battery power available to
the P-Mags even when in the inactive state. The diagram
shows a third switch (accessible through the oil check/
filler door?) that places temporary power on both
ignitions while leaving absolute control over activity
in the hands of whoever has access to pilot's controls
on the panel.
If one chooses this architecture, then a light on the
panel should be included to alert the pilot should
the switch be left in the maintenance position. Not
a big risk from a fight operations and safety perspective
but it WOULD run the battery down.
In answer to your specific question, it's my recommendation
that you get a 2-10 switch for the P-mag. Since the E-mag
is electrically dependent, a 2-3 switch to handle both sides
of the E-mag's switching needs is called for. Your existing
mag switches are not suited to this task.
Bob . . .
OOPS! I just noted that a narrative for Figure Z-33 didn't
find its way into the published work. Rats! . . . just sent
Rev 11 back to the printers for another 1000 books. I'll get
the Z-notes updated and publish an errata sheet. I'm glad
you brought up this topic. It showed me where my homework
needs some attention.
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: | Changing the mag switches out for emag and |
pmag
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
and pmag
At 08:25 AM 3/3/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Not sure I understand the need for the test switch.
>
>If I understand correctly to enter "Test mode" one simply needs to leave
>the P lead grounded (off) and apply power, in this case turn on the
>master. Of course now the whole ship is powered up but this seems a
>fairly small inconvenience considering that timing is a pretty simple
>affair.
>
>Am I correct in my understanding here?
If you wire per Z-33 where powered support is available only
from the upper switch position for the purposes of confirming
a P-mag's internal power supply during pre-flight, then you
have no way to power up but ignition inactive (control lead
grounded) without the adding the third maintenance or test
switch switch.
Bob . . .
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 03/02/06 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Darrah" <RDarrah@austin.rr.com>
George, I hope you mean what you write!
Do not archive>
Bob Darrah
Seawind, with Mazda 20B and, of all things, a stock IR alternator
>
> LoL, ha ha ha, Take care all.
> (I am done with this topic)
> (fight amongst yourself)
>
> Cheers George
>
>
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: | Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PTACKABURY@aol.com
Bob: I am sure you have answered this one 700 times but please once more
for the not yet informed: I have a Lancair IV which is carbon and fiberglass.
The aft upper fuse is fiberglass, under which is an antennae farm for com,
gps, elt, etc. This is all pretty standard, built generally IAW the kit
guidance. How it is time to select paint and I am considering SW Acry Glo
metallic Urethane. The question: will metallic urethane on the aft upper fuse
fiberglass section significantly degrade antennae performance?
thank you,
paul tackabury
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Bruce,
There are proper ways to discuss ideas and "jetpilot" is, in my
humble opinion, out of bounds in his replys. If he wants to disect every
word that Bob writes, then let him directly e-mail Bob. We don't need to
get his "flaming" replys.
Jim
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: | Strange people behavior in debate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Bob, I think this is Allen Barrett from Barrett Performance Aircraft
Engines. He's almost as "gold" as you :-)
Bill S
7a wiring
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:22 AM
Cc: BPA
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Strange people behavior in debate
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:01 PM 3/2/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BPA" <BPA@BPAENGINES.COM>
>
>What?
>
>Oh yeah, do not archive :)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 3:07 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strange people behavior in debate
<snip>
Dear "BPA",
I just noticed that what appeared to be a double-posting by
George was in fact an alternative posting by yourself as
a some kind of a favor . . .
Be advised that this is frowned upon by all Lists. There
are a limited number of reasons for someone to mount
this kind of activity. They include but are not limited
to: a ruse to get around the "kill files" of individual members
of the list (which, of course encourages them to add you
to the "kill file" too). Your truncated identification is also
disturbing. We all like to believe we're in partnership
with honorable people having common interests with no reasons
to be secretive about who we are or what we are about.
I'd like to believe that you've subscribed to this List
because you find value in what transpires here and/or you
have knowledge to contribute. A search of my archives shows
that this is your first post to the list under the
pseudonym. I'd be pleased to welcome you to the List and
to know you as I know virtually everyone else. I would be
saddened to learn that your purpose for participating here
is to provide a second conduit for George's rants.
Kindest regards,
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: Seminar in the South |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
Bob,
I live very close to Knoxville, TN.
Even though I've wired one homebuilt according to the 'Connection and I'm
wiring another one right now, I'd love to attend a seminar. Every project
teaches me something and sends me back to the 'Connection for a re-read.
I keep tabs on your seminar schedule hoping to catch one in this general
area. Atlanta is close enough! I'll talk to the guys at EAA Chapter 17 on
Tuesday to see if there's an interest here in Knoxville. I'd be happy to
help organize. And of course, there's that cake :o)
Rodney
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: | Re: Seminar in the South |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bret Smith" <smithhb@tds.net>
Rodney,
I live in Blue Ridge, GA and our Chapter in Blairsville would probably be
willing to participate in trying to get something together with you.
Contact me off-list smithhb@tds.net
Bret Smith
RV-9A (91314)
Mineral Bluff, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rodney
Dunham
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:42 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Seminar in the South
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
--> <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
Bob,
I live very close to Knoxville, TN.
Even though I've wired one homebuilt according to the 'Connection and I'm
wiring another one right now, I'd love to attend a seminar. Every project
teaches me something and sends me back to the 'Connection for a re-read.
I keep tabs on your seminar schedule hoping to catch one in this general
area. Atlanta is close enough! I'll talk to the guys at EAA Chapter 17 on
Tuesday to see if there's an interest here in Knoxville. I'd be happy to
help organize. And of course, there's that cake :o)
Rodney
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! --
|