Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:45 AM - Re: Air Speed Switch (LarryRobertHelming)
2. 07:11 AM - Re: Why use starter contactor? (Eric M. Jones)
3. 07:29 AM - Re: Re: Why use starter contactor? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
4. 08:00 AM - Re: Re: Why use starter contactor? (Mickey Coggins)
5. 08:24 AM - Re: Overvoltage, faulty switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:05 AM - Re: Re: Why use starter contactor? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 12:09 PM - (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Bill Dube)
8. 12:32 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
9. 12:57 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Harley)
10. 01:01 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Brian Lloyd)
11. 01:07 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Doug Windhorn)
12. 01:17 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (MWilli7119@aol.com)
13. 01:18 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Bill Dube)
14. 01:25 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Bill Dube)
15. 01:52 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Bill Dube)
16. 01:52 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Bill Dube)
17. 02:28 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Ken)
18. 04:15 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 04:15 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (LarryRobertHelming)
20. 04:58 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Jim Michael)
21. 05:24 PM - Re: Re: Why use starter contactor? (Alex Peterson)
22. 05:28 PM - Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery (Bill Dube)
23. 06:34 PM - Re: Re: Why use starter contactor? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 07:05 PM - Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations (Paul McAllister)
25. 07:24 PM - Anyone need a nice 4.5" thermometer? ()
26. 08:19 PM - Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations ()
27. 08:27 PM - Re: Molex Pins (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 09:39 PM - Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations (Richard Riley)
29. 09:57 PM - Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations (Werner Schneider)
30. 10:00 PM - Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations (Werner Schneider)
31. 11:50 PM - Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations (James Quinn)
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: Air Speed Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Operating temperature range is a problem unless you have a stable
environment to put it in. Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message ----- >
> Take a look at the World Magnetics line available thru Digikey at
> www.designflexswitches.com . There's a new Goldtech line that looks
> promising for the application. This also looks favorable for a pitot based
> "squat" switch or a gear warning sensor based on airspeed. The previously
> available switches were either normally open (PSF102), weren't sensitive
> below 2" H20 (PSF 103). This new switch appears to be able to handle
> switching loads for the landing gear solenoid in the application where you
> would prevent gear retraction for airspeeds below 70 knots (3.159" H20)
> with the switch in series. I've been waiting for something like this! What
> do you gurus think? Larry Ford Glasair I RG N149LF
>
>
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Why use starter contactor? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
A dump of what I think I know and some vaguely suspicions--
Stuck Starters--The starter motor pinion is 1.2 inch in diameter, the ring gear
is about 12 inches in diameter--a 1:10 ratio. The starter (non-geared type) turns
at several thousand RPM to turn the engine at several hundred RPM. When the
engine is running at maybe 4000 RPM, an engaged pinion would turn the starter
at 40,000 RPM.
1) Is this even possible?
2) Since a PM starter would be a generator, what would be the effect?
3) Would not a pilot have any way to know this?
Contactors Generally--The Stancor White Rogers etc. B&C was a wimpy return spring
because a beefy return spring would require too much power to hold compressed.
I suspect the thing will re-close at only a few G's. Bob N. had access to
a G-force test rig. Please Bob can you run some tests for us? A Kilovac EV200
would be good too. A shake table would yield good data too.
Starting Contactors Specifically--I side with Jet Pilot George. A 20A pushbutton
switch is simple, reliable, lightweight...and heck if it sticks the button won't
pop back out.
Consideration of contact-arcing prevention and transient voltages need to be addressed,
too. There are big sparks to lasso.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=27318#27318
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: Why use starter contactor? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
My extremly limited knowledge of stuck starters comes from a friend who
flew 250 miles at night in a C172 with the starter engaged the whole
way...I was amazed...And so was the owner at the repair bill!
I do like the simple warning light idea wired to the starter side of the
contactor and will be retrofitting a 'Radio Shaft' mini 12V LED to my
panel
Frank
RV7a...Almost at paint stage.
A dump of what I think I know and some vaguely suspicions--
Stuck Starters--The starter motor pinion is 1.2 inch in diameter, the
ring gear is about 12 inches in diameter--a 1:10 ratio. The starter
(non-geared type) turns at several thousand RPM to turn the engine at
several hundred RPM. When the engine is running at maybe 4000 RPM, an
engaged pinion would turn the starter at 40,000 RPM.
1) Is this even possible?
2) Since a PM starter would be a generator, what would be the effect?
3) Would not a pilot have any way to know this?
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: Why use starter contactor? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> Contactors Generally--The Stancor White Rogers etc. B&C was a wimpy
> return spring because a beefy return spring would require too much
> power to hold compressed. I suspect the thing will re-close at only a
> few G's. Bob N. had access to a G-force test rig. Please Bob can you
> run some tests for us? A Kilovac EV200 would be good too. A shake
> table would yield good data too.
It seems like you could energize one with a bit of wire, and
swing your arm around round and round like a propeller, like
you used to do as a kid, to generate some Gs. My battery
contactors are laying on their side, so the only G force that
will cause them to open will be acceleration, and my engine
won't have that much power.
In any case, if this were a real problem, wouldn't all
those aerobatic guys be complaining a lot?
BTW, what's the status on your solid-state contactors?
Once those are available, the "hand grenade" contactors
will go the way of the vacuum tube.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Overvoltage, faulty switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:46 PM 4/9/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Vern Little <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
>
>Since my first flight of my RV-9A in January, I've been plagued with
>over-voltage alarms.
>
>I've been through the alternator field circuit several times, re-seating
>fast-on terminals. This always seemed to fix the problem for several
>operating hours.
>
>On Friday, I was flying over the mountains when I had an alarm again, so
>I shut the alternator off and began an in-flight diagnostic.
>
>On the ground, my inspection revealed that I have a bad S700-2-10 switch
>(my Master Switch).
>
>All of the fast-on terminals are riveted in place on this particular
>switch, and the rivets were quite loose, making the connections
>intermittent and resistive.
>
>My short term fix in flight was to wiggle the terminals by reaching
>under the panel with my fingers.
>
>I've contacted B&C for a replacement, and I've offered to send the bad
>one back to them for analysis.
>
>Has anyone else seen this problem?
Lots of people have had this and similar problems. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Anatomy_of_a_Switch_Failure/Anatomy_of_a_Switch_Failure.html
Bob . . .
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Why use starter contactor? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:06 AM 4/10/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>A dump of what I think I know and some vaguely suspicions--
>
>Stuck Starters--The starter motor pinion is 1.2 inch in diameter, the ring
>gear is about 12 inches in diameter--a 1:10 ratio. The starter (non-geared
>type) turns at several thousand RPM to turn the engine at several hundred
>RPM. When the engine is running at maybe 4000 RPM, an engaged pinion would
>turn the starter at 40,000 RPM.
>
>1) Is this even possible?
For a short period of time . ..
>2) Since a PM starter would be a generator, what would be the effect?
All starters have over-run clutches to prevent the engine from driving
the starter. While the pinion is indeed spinning fast, the starter
is turning MUCH slower.
>3) Would not a pilot have any way to know this?
If it's an electrical 'stick' a light will tell you that
it's happening. A mechanical stick generally goes unnoticed.
>Contactors Generally--The Stancor White Rogers etc. B&C was a wimpy return
>spring . . .
Don't understand the reference to B&C. They
don't sell a starter contactor with a "whimpy
return spring" . . .
> . . . because a beefy return spring would require too much power to
> hold compressed. I suspect the thing will re-close at only a few G's. Bob
> N. had access to a G-force test rig. Please Bob can you run some tests
> for us? A Kilovac EV200 would be good too. A shake table would yield good
> data too.
Spring rates are selected for trade offs for pull-in voltage,
contact opening force and contact spreading velocity. Once a contactor
is energized, the holding force on the seated plunger is huge.
Spring rates are not a consideration for energy required to
KEEP the contactor closed, only voltage required to get it
closed in the first place.
I have tested the S-W-R contactors on the centrifuge and was able
to close a continuous duty contactor (light spring) at about
4-5 g's. Of course, continuous duty contactors are used only for
battery contactors and are ALREADY closed in flight so g-loading
is not a matter for consideration.
An intermittent duty S-W-R contactor wasn't available to me
for testing but one might safely assume that the springs
are stronger and might take more g-force to close them. But
this begs the REAL question . . . why would anyone use
a S-W-R contactor for a starter contactor in the first place?
The problems cited by Skytec for replacing starters on older
airplanes focused on intermittent duty versions of the S-W-R
contactor used on tens of thousands of older airplanes
originally fitted with wound field starters . . . demonstrably
gentler on a starter contactor but STILL prone to sticking.
When the wound-field starter was replaced with a PM machine,
inrush currents went up by as much as 2 times that of
conditions prevailing when the S-W-R designs were fitted
to those airplanes decades ago.
The sad fact was a recommendation to replace the S-W-R,
high area, low pressure contactor with a high-dollar, Eaton-CH
6041H series contactor. These are fine, mil-spec contactors
but completely unnecessary.
We've discussed the advantages of the newer low-area,
high-pressure starter contactors used in the automotive world
for decades. This is the style of contactor that was offered
by the B&C in their original starter installation kits
and later by the AeroElectric Connection when we had the
parts business. It's been used on millions of cars having
PM starters . . . while it can STILL stick due to external
effects of soggy battery or tentative control signals, the
overall service life of this device has been satisfactory
and cost of ownership is very attractive.
This modern starter contactor will not be closed by g-loads
any of us hope to experience and would probably pull the
wings off before the contacts close. Further, if one installs
the S702-1 style contactor on the firewall as recommended,
orientation of the plunger motion is such that you would
have to fly into a mountainside to effect an unintended
closure of the starter contactor.
The whole g-loading concerns for starter contactors
thing was a tempest in a teapot from the get-go. It's easily
analyzed, understood and DESIGNED out by judicious
selection of modern, low cost contactors.
>Starting Contactors Specifically--I side with Jet Pilot George. A 20A
>pushbutton switch is simple, reliable, lightweight...and heck if it sticks
>the button won't pop back out.
>
>Consideration of contact-arcing prevention and transient voltages need to
>be addressed, too. There are big sparks to lasso.
Yup, the S702-1 and it's close cousins have slain these
dragons too. Contact spreading velocity is fast enough to
keep arcing to a satisfactory level and transients were
never a threat to contactors . . . but the S702-1 comes
with it's spike catcher built right in.
The Kilovac and 6041H contactors are truly fine devices
and there are cases where their application makes good
sense . . . but they to0 have their vulnerabilities
and limitations. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Failures/6041_Contactor_Failure.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Failures/Kilovolt_Contactor_Lightning_Damage.jpg
These discussions have been long on hip-shot recommendations
based on ill-conceived worries and short on systems integration
analysis based on design goals for low cost of ownership,
failure tolerant design and an understanding of all the
ingredients in the recipe for elegant solutions.
Bob . . .
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
for these before I put a big effort into this.
Here are the specs:
14 volts
480 cranking amps
8.8 amp-hours
2.7 pounds (Yes, that is right.)
10 year warranty (prorated)
Completely sealed battery
As safe as lead acid or NiCad (Yes, they really are as safe. That is why
they are so expensive.)
Built-in electronic monitoring system warns of over-voltage,
under-voltage, over heating, or internal battery fault.
That is all the good news. The downside is that they will cost about
$475. I'm not sure how many folks would want a 10 year battery (at
least) that weighs about 1/3 as much as an "ordinary" battery, but costs
four times as much.
The specs above are real. I have personally tested these batteries
and they do, indeed, perform this well, so that is not an issue. I'm
going to make one for myself. The question is, will folks buy them if I
produce them?
Let me know if you think you would be interested in such a high-tech
battery at this cost. Again, just forget everything you know about
batteries and assume the specs I've given are correct.
Thanks in advance,
Bill Dube'
PS
These batteries are the ones I'm putting in my bike at the moment.
http://www.killacycle.com
With this sort of hobby, I always have my finger on the pulse of
battery technology. These particular batteries are not only perfect for
my drag bike, they happen to be perfect for an airplane because they are
so safe (but they are expensive.)
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: | (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
At $300 I would get interested, but the 10 year life would have to be
proven for me to slap down this kind of cash.
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Dube
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube
--> <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
for these before I put a big effort into this.
Here are the specs:
14 volts
480 cranking amps
8.8 amp-hours
2.7 pounds (Yes, that is right.)
10 year warranty (prorated)
Completely sealed battery
As safe as lead acid or NiCad (Yes, they really are as safe. That is why
they are so expensive.) Built-in electronic monitoring system warns of
over-voltage, under-voltage, over heating, or internal battery fault.
That is all the good news. The downside is that they will cost about
$475. I'm not sure how many folks would want a 10 year battery (at
least) that weighs about 1/3 as much as an "ordinary" battery, but costs
four times as much.
The specs above are real. I have personally tested these batteries
and they do, indeed, perform this well, so that is not an issue. I'm
going to make one for myself. The question is, will folks buy them if I
produce them?
Let me know if you think you would be interested in such a high-tech
battery at this cost. Again, just forget everything you know about
batteries and assume the specs I've given are correct.
Thanks in advance,
Bill Dube'
PS
These batteries are the ones I'm putting in my bike at the moment.
http://www.killacycle.com
With this sort of hobby, I always have my finger on the pulse of
battery technology. These particular batteries are not only perfect for
my drag bike, they happen to be perfect for an airplane because they are
so safe (but they are expensive.)
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: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Here's the web site for the battery manufacturer...in Singapore..
www.boldertmf.com
The FAQ page is interesting...seems like there are quite a few charging
and storage conditions.
Harley
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>At $300 I would get interested, but the 10 year life would have to be
>proven for me to slap down this kind of cash.
>
>Frank
>
>Do not archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>Dube
>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:57 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube
>--> <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>
> I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
>long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
>cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
>for these before I put a big effort into this.
>
> Here are the specs:
>
>14 volts
>480 cranking amps
>8.8 amp-hours
>2.7 pounds (Yes, that is right.)
>10 year warranty (prorated)
>Completely sealed battery
>As safe as lead acid or NiCad (Yes, they really are as safe. That is why
>they are so expensive.) Built-in electronic monitoring system warns of
>over-voltage, under-voltage, over heating, or internal battery fault.
>
> That is all the good news. The downside is that they will cost about
>$475. I'm not sure how many folks would want a 10 year battery (at
>least) that weighs about 1/3 as much as an "ordinary" battery, but costs
>four times as much.
>
> The specs above are real. I have personally tested these batteries
>and they do, indeed, perform this well, so that is not an issue. I'm
>going to make one for myself. The question is, will folks buy them if I
>produce them?
>
> Let me know if you think you would be interested in such a high-tech
>battery at this cost. Again, just forget everything you know about
>batteries and assume the specs I've given are correct.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Bill Dube'
>
>PS
>
> These batteries are the ones I'm putting in my bike at the moment.
>http://www.killacycle.com
>
> With this sort of hobby, I always have my finger on the pulse of
>battery technology. These particular batteries are not only perfect for
>my drag bike, they happen to be perfect for an airplane because they are
>so safe (but they are expensive.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Bill Dube wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>
> I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
> long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
> cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
> for these before I put a big effort into this.
Very cool. Still lead-acid? I couldn't really tell from your web site.
But, no, I probably wouldn't spend $475 on a battery.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
Bill,
My first thought was no way would I put $950 into a dual battery system,
weight advantages or no.
But when I start to consider that over a 10 year period, I will have spent
that amount (not considering present value issues) to annually replace one
of my batteries (double the amp hours, triple the cranking amps, almost 6
times the weight), it becomes a little more intriguing.
I am sure others will have several other, and perhaps more meaningful
questions, but here are mine:
What is the residual voltage at the stated cranking output?
What is the residual voltage for the quoted amp-hours?
What would be the consequences of increasing the amp-hour rating about
double? For a battery dependant airplane, amp-hours is like fuel in the
tank.
What is your 10 yr life span based on? Is that the life span if only used
for starting? For me to consider these, they would have to be more than
just a starting battery; they need to be capable of keeping me going after
the engine has started. What would be the lifespan if used as I would need
them to be used?
Also, guarantees are only as good as the organization behind them; after
undergoing some unplanned experiences with "experimental" engines, I would
be skeptical there.
Regards, Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dube" <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
Sent: Monday, 10 April, 2006 11:57
Subject: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube
> <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>
> I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
> long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
> cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
> for these before I put a big effort into this.
>
> Here are the specs:
>
> 14 volts
> 480 cranking amps
> 8.8 amp-hours
> 2.7 pounds (Yes, that is right.)
> 10 year warranty (prorated)
> Completely sealed battery
> As safe as lead acid or NiCad (Yes, they really are as safe. That is why
> they are so expensive.)
> Built-in electronic monitoring system warns of over-voltage,
> under-voltage, over heating, or internal battery fault.
>
> That is all the good news. The downside is that they will cost about
> $475. I'm not sure how many folks would want a 10 year battery (at
> least) that weighs about 1/3 as much as an "ordinary" battery, but costs
> four times as much.
>
> The specs above are real. I have personally tested these batteries
> and they do, indeed, perform this well, so that is not an issue. I'm
> going to make one for myself. The question is, will folks buy them if I
> produce them?
>
> Let me know if you think you would be interested in such a high-tech
> battery at this cost. Again, just forget everything you know about
> batteries and assume the specs I've given are correct.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Bill Dube'
>
> PS
>
> These batteries are the ones I'm putting in my bike at the moment.
> http://www.killacycle.com
>
> With this sort of hobby, I always have my finger on the pulse of
> battery technology. These particular batteries are not only perfect for
> my drag bike, they happen to be perfect for an airplane because they are
> so safe (but they are expensive.)
>
>
>
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: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MWilli7119@aol.com
of course if the battery is indeed the one that someone sent me a link to
the FAQ's say that it can only be charged by its charging system.. how much does
that weigh and can it be charged by alternator?
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: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>At $300 I would get interested, but the 10 year life would have to be
>proven for me to slap down this kind of cash.
>
>
It would take ten years to prove it. :-)
I figured the warranty would be the equivalent of proof. You would
be refunded any portion of the battery life you did not receive.
Maybe a warranty doesn't matter to folks.
Bill Dube'
>Frank
>
>Do not archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>Dube
>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:57 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube
>--> <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>
> I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
>long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
>cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
>for these before I put a big effort into this.
>
> Here are the specs:
>
>14 volts
>480 cranking amps
>8.8 amp-hours
>2.7 pounds (Yes, that is right.)
>10 year warranty (prorated)
>Completely sealed battery
>As safe as lead acid or NiCad (Yes, they really are as safe. That is why
>they are so expensive.) Built-in electronic monitoring system warns of
>over-voltage, under-voltage, over heating, or internal battery fault.
>
> That is all the good news. The downside is that they will cost about
>$475. I'm not sure how many folks would want a 10 year battery (at
>least) that weighs about 1/3 as much as an "ordinary" battery, but costs
>four times as much.
>
> The specs above are real. I have personally tested these batteries
>and they do, indeed, perform this well, so that is not an issue. I'm
>going to make one for myself. The question is, will folks buy them if I
>produce them?
>
> Let me know if you think you would be interested in such a high-tech
>battery at this cost. Again, just forget everything you know about
>batteries and assume the specs I've given are correct.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Bill Dube'
>
>PS
>
> These batteries are the ones I'm putting in my bike at the moment.
>http://www.killacycle.com
>
> With this sort of hobby, I always have my finger on the pulse of
>battery technology. These particular batteries are not only perfect for
>my drag bike, they happen to be perfect for an airplane because they are
>so safe (but they are expensive.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
Nope. Wrong battery. Not Bolder TMF. That is what I used to run in the bike.
No hope for a ten-year life. More like a year. Maybe less.
An 8.8 amp-hr 12 volt battery made from Bolder TMF cells would weigh
about 11 pounds. It would have 8,000 cranking amps, however.
A 1,000 cranking amp Bolder TMF 12 volt battery would weigh about
1.5 pounds, but would have less than 2 amp-hrs of capacity.
Bill Dube'
Harley wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
>
>Here's the web site for the battery manufacturer...in Singapore..
>
>www.boldertmf.com
>
>The FAQ page is interesting...seems like there are quite a few charging
>and storage conditions.
>
>Harley
>
>
>Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>
>>At $300 I would get interested, but the 10 year life would have to be
>>proven for me to slap down this kind of cash.
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>Do not archive
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>>Dube
>>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:57 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube
>>--> <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>>
>> I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
>>long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
>>cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
>>for these before I put a big effort into this.
>>
>> Here are the specs:
>>
>>14 volts
>>480 cranking amps
>>8.8 amp-hours
>>2.7 pounds (Yes, that is right.)
>>10 year warranty (prorated)
>>Completely sealed battery
>>As safe as lead acid or NiCad (Yes, they really are as safe. That is why
>>they are so expensive.) Built-in electronic monitoring system warns of
>>over-voltage, under-voltage, over heating, or internal battery fault.
>>
>> That is all the good news. The downside is that they will cost about
>>$475. I'm not sure how many folks would want a 10 year battery (at
>>least) that weighs about 1/3 as much as an "ordinary" battery, but costs
>>four times as much.
>>
>> The specs above are real. I have personally tested these batteries
>>and they do, indeed, perform this well, so that is not an issue. I'm
>>going to make one for myself. The question is, will folks buy them if I
>>produce them?
>>
>> Let me know if you think you would be interested in such a high-tech
>>battery at this cost. Again, just forget everything you know about
>>batteries and assume the specs I've given are correct.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Bill Dube'
>>
>>PS
>>
>> These batteries are the ones I'm putting in my bike at the moment.
>>http://www.killacycle.com
>>
>> With this sort of hobby, I always have my finger on the pulse of
>>battery technology. These particular batteries are not only perfect for
>>my drag bike, they happen to be perfect for an airplane because they are
>>so safe (but they are expensive.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
At room temperature the voltage will sag to about 8 volts at the full
cranking current. Warmer is better. Colder is worse. The difference is
not huge.
The voltage during discharge is quite stable, as is the internal
resistance.
The cost will scale directly with amp-hrs as will the cranking amps.
The cycle life is about 10 times that of lead-acid.
It sounds like most folks don't put much value on a long warranty from a
small (ie "garage") company. I'll probably not bother to do such a long
warranty because it doesn't add to the marketability and adds
significantly to my headaches when folks abuse the product.
Bill Dube'
Doug Windhorn wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
>
>Bill,
>
>My first thought was no way would I put $950 into a dual battery system,
>weight advantages or no.
>
>But when I start to consider that over a 10 year period, I will have spent
>that amount (not considering present value issues) to annually replace one
>of my batteries (double the amp hours, triple the cranking amps, almost 6
>times the weight), it becomes a little more intriguing.
>
>I am sure others will have several other, and perhaps more meaningful
>questions, but here are mine:
>
>What is the residual voltage at the stated cranking output?
>
>What is the residual voltage for the quoted amp-hours?
>
>What would be the consequences of increasing the amp-hour rating about
>double? For a battery dependant airplane, amp-hours is like fuel in the
>tank.
>
>What is your 10 yr life span based on? Is that the life span if only used
>for starting? For me to consider these, they would have to be more than
>just a starting battery; they need to be capable of keeping me going after
>the engine has started. What would be the lifespan if used as I would need
>them to be used?
>
>Also, guarantees are only as good as the organization behind them; after
>undergoing some unplanned experiences with "experimental" engines, I would
>be skeptical there.
>
>Regards, Doug
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Dube" <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Monday, 10 April, 2006 11:57
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube
>><william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>>
>> I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
>>long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
>>cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
>>for these before I put a big effort into this.
>>
>> Here are the specs:
>>
>>14 volts
>>480 cranking amps
>>8.8 amp-hours
>>2.7 pounds (Yes, that is right.)
>>10 year warranty (prorated)
>>Completely sealed battery
>>As safe as lead acid or NiCad (Yes, they really are as safe. That is why
>>they are so expensive.)
>>Built-in electronic monitoring system warns of over-voltage,
>>under-voltage, over heating, or internal battery fault.
>>
>> That is all the good news. The downside is that they will cost about
>>$475. I'm not sure how many folks would want a 10 year battery (at
>>least) that weighs about 1/3 as much as an "ordinary" battery, but costs
>>four times as much.
>>
>> The specs above are real. I have personally tested these batteries
>>and they do, indeed, perform this well, so that is not an issue. I'm
>>going to make one for myself. The question is, will folks buy them if I
>>produce them?
>>
>> Let me know if you think you would be interested in such a high-tech
>>battery at this cost. Again, just forget everything you know about
>>batteries and assume the specs I've given are correct.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Bill Dube'
>>
>>PS
>>
>> These batteries are the ones I'm putting in my bike at the moment.
>>http://www.killacycle.com
>>
>> With this sort of hobby, I always have my finger on the pulse of
>>battery technology. These particular batteries are not only perfect for
>>my drag bike, they happen to be perfect for an airplane because they are
>>so safe (but they are expensive.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
Ordinary charging system. 14.4 volts max.
You've never heard of these unless you are in the battery industry.
Bill Dube'
MWilli7119@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MWilli7119@aol.com
>
>of course if the battery is indeed the one that someone sent me a link to
>the FAQ's say that it can only be charged by its charging system.. how much does
> that weigh and can it be charged by alternator?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Bill
In some respects these fit my requirements as I'm using two 9 AH
batteries at about $100. ea now. They are about 8 lbs each and I don't
need much reserve capacity with two alternators. However I'm expecting
several years service from these and would not spend that much
additional money for the weight savings and additional performance. Also
I've learned that if something is really that good it will usually be
put into volume production and become dramatically cheaper ;) I agree
that a long warranty doesn't mean much to me as even good size companies
restructure pretty quickly if they have a serious warranty issue these days.
Ken
Bill Dube wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>
> I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
>long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
>cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
>for these before I put a big effort into this.
>
>
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:57 PM 4/10/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>
> I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
>long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
>cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
>for these before I put a big effort into this.
>
> Here are the specs:
>
>14 volts
>480 cranking amps
>8.8 amp-hours
>2.7 pounds (Yes, that is right.)
>10 year warranty (prorated)
>Completely sealed battery
>As safe as lead acid or NiCad (Yes, they really are as safe. That is why
>they are so expensive.)
>Built-in electronic monitoring system warns of over-voltage,
>under-voltage, over heating, or internal battery fault.
>
> That is all the good news. The downside is that they will cost about
>$475. I'm not sure how many folks would want a 10 year battery (at
>least) that weighs about 1/3 as much as an "ordinary" battery, but costs
>four times as much.
>
> The specs above are real. I have personally tested these batteries
>and they do, indeed, perform this well, so that is not an issue. I'm
>going to make one for myself. The question is, will folks buy them if I
>produce them?
>
> Let me know if you think you would be interested in such a high-tech
>battery at this cost. Again, just forget everything you know about
>batteries and assume the specs I've given are correct.
If my e-bus loads say I want to carry an 18 a.h. battery then your
proposed weight is 5.4# and indeed about 1/3rd that of a run-of-the
mill SVLA battery. So the question does become a matter of spending
about 12x as much to save on 10# of weight over a period of 10 years.
Will your proposed electronics keep track of and annunicate
the battery's present capacity? I've suggested that 'premium'
batteries may have a less than stellar return on investment
if the owner/operator has to purchase and periodically use
test equipment to track the battery's condition for the purpose
of changing it out when capacity falls below operator selected
minimums.
Suggest you start with customers who fly revenue generating aircraft.
If you can deliver 3 a.h. per pound of battery at 12v then it works
out to 1.5 a.h. per pound on a 24 volt battery. Weight savings on
and existing 25 a.h., 24-volt design at 56 pounds could be on the
order of 20 pounds. When the airplane carries two such batteries
at 112 pounds and replaces them about every 18 months for several
thousands of dollars each . . . THERE's a market. Come out to
RAC and I'll get you an audience with powers that be on future
product improvements. I've seen them light up like the Grinch
under an Xmas tree if they thought they could save as little as
three pounds per on a 56# battery.
Bob . . .
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Why would I want to buy one? It only produces about 1/2 the amps my Odyseey
680 produces. I have my e-buss setup for a 17 amp battery. I would need
two to have the same endurance. Also, you do not say what the physical size
would be. So what will that be? And how may charges and discharges can it
handle? Will it require anything more than what we have now in our planes
regarding regulators and overvoltage protection? Would an ordinary battery
charger work with it? More info is needed before I would trade in my $85
680 with a known performance record for an unknown costing 5-6 times more.
Larry in Indiana do not archive
----- Original Message -----
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube
> <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>
> I am considering producing state-of-the art, very lightweight, ultra
> long life, starting batteries for experimental aircraft. They won't be
> cheap to make, however. I'd like to get some feedback as to the market
> for these before I put a big effort into this.
>
>
> That is all the good news. The downside is that they will cost about
> $475. I'm not sure how many folks would want a 10 year battery (at
> least) that weighs about 1/3 as much as an "ordinary" battery, but costs
> four times as much.
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Bill Dube'
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Michael <jm@10squaredcorp.com>
There might be serious interest by those interested in lightening bush
planes such as the Husky. Aviat has been working with some folks on a
light Husky. Could be an opportunity to get it certified.
On Monday 10 April 2006 23:08, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Suggest you start with customers who fly revenue generating
> aircraft. If you can deliver 3 a.h. per pound of battery at 12v
> then it works out to 1.5 a.h. per pound on a 24 volt battery.
> Weight savings on and existing 25 a.h., 24-volt design at 56 pounds
> could be on the order of 20 pounds. When the airplane carries two
> such batteries at 112 pounds and replaces them about every 18
> months for several thousands of dollars each . . . THERE's a
> market. Come out to RAC and I'll get you an audience with powers
> that be on future product improvements. I've seen them light up
> like the Grinch under an Xmas tree if they thought they could save
> as little as three pounds per on a 56# battery.
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Why use starter contactor? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> --> <emjones@charter.net>
>
> A dump of what I think I know and some vaguely suspicions--
>
> Stuck Starters--The starter motor pinion is 1.2 inch in
> diameter, the ring gear is about 12 inches in diameter--a
> 1:10 ratio. The starter (non-geared type) turns at several
> thousand RPM to turn the engine at several hundred RPM. When
> the engine is running at maybe 4000 RPM, an engaged pinion
> would turn the starter at 40,000 RPM.
>
> 1) Is this even possible?
> 2) Since a PM starter would be a generator, what would be the effect?
> 3) Would not a pilot have any way to know this?
I don't know about all aircraft starters, but the starter pinion assembly on
a Lamar starter will not allow the starter to be spun up by the engine.
There is a centrifugal release on the pinion (small gear on starter) which,
once released above some rpm, causes the pinion to retract. The retraction
is caused by the (driven) pinion threading its way along a coarse thread. I
only know the Lamar starter, but I would hope all starters act similarly. It
would be a crappy design if it weren't tolerant of people holding the start
button on too long.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 750 hours
Maple Grove, MN
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: (Almost) perfect airplane battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
Because the voltage is so steady, as is the impedance, you can only
easily sense when you are near full or near empty. Like 10% on either
end, perhaps a bit more. This is what the standard electronics will
annunciate. If folks want more, I can do it, but it would add to the cost.
Thanks for the offer to help show off this battery. I'll take you up
on it. It is very kind of you.
It looks like there is enough interest to build a prototype. I'll
probably build it late this summer.
You could check the capacity pretty easily during the annual by
applying a steady load while watching for the warning light.
You would be wise to have some sort of warning horn that tells you
that you have left the master on when you open the door. Kind of like
you have in your car. Running any battery flat can damage it. This could
be an expensive mistake with a battery like this one.
>>>>How I check battery capacity<<<
This works for any type battery. My favorite load is a 300 Watt
inverter, an electric clock with hands, (or mechanical digits,) and a
flood light. Charge up the battery until full. Set the clock to
midnight. Plug it into the inverter. Plug the floodlight into the
inverter. Connect the inverter to the battery. When the inverter senses
the battery voltage has gone below ~ 11 volts, it will shut off. (This
keeps you from damaging the battery if you forget to check on it during
the capacity test.) You then know how long the battery held the constant
wattage load of the floodlight. Do a little math and you have the
battery capacity. Works like a champ.
Bill Dube'
>
> If my e-bus loads say I want to carry an 18 a.h. battery then your
> proposed weight is 5.4# and indeed about 1/3rd that of a run-of-the
> mill SVLA battery. So the question does become a matter of spending
> about 12x as much to save on 10# of weight over a period of 10 years.
>
> Will your proposed electronics keep track of and annunicate
> the battery's present capacity? I've suggested that 'premium'
> batteries may have a less than stellar return on investment
> if the owner/operator has to purchase and periodically use
> test equipment to track the battery's condition for the purpose
> of changing it out when capacity falls below operator selected
> minimums.
>
> Suggest you start with customers who fly revenue generating aircraft.
> If you can deliver 3 a.h. per pound of battery at 12v then it works
> out to 1.5 a.h. per pound on a 24 volt battery. Weight savings on
> and existing 25 a.h., 24-volt design at 56 pounds could be on the
> order of 20 pounds. When the airplane carries two such batteries
> at 112 pounds and replaces them about every 18 months for several
> thousands of dollars each . . . THERE's a market. Come out to
> RAC and I'll get you an audience with powers that be on future
> product improvements. I've seen them light up like the Grinch
> under an Xmas tree if they thought they could save as little as
> three pounds per on a 56# battery.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Why use starter contactor? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:21 PM 4/10/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
><alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> > --> <emjones@charter.net>
> >
> > A dump of what I think I know and some vaguely suspicions--
> >
> > Stuck Starters--The starter motor pinion is 1.2 inch in
> > diameter, the ring gear is about 12 inches in diameter--a
> > 1:10 ratio. The starter (non-geared type) turns at several
> > thousand RPM to turn the engine at several hundred RPM. When
> > the engine is running at maybe 4000 RPM, an engaged pinion
> > would turn the starter at 40,000 RPM.
> >
> > 1) Is this even possible?
> > 2) Since a PM starter would be a generator, what would be the effect?
> > 3) Would not a pilot have any way to know this?
>
>I don't know about all aircraft starters, but the starter pinion assembly on
>a Lamar starter will not allow the starter to be spun up by the engine.
>There is a centrifugal release on the pinion (small gear on starter) which,
>once released above some rpm, causes the pinion to retract. The retraction
>is caused by the (driven) pinion threading its way along a coarse thread. I
>only know the Lamar starter, but I would hope all starters act similarly. It
>would be a crappy design if it weren't tolerant of people holding the start
>button on too long.
When you think about it, some kind of over-run mechanism is
essential to the survival of a starter motor. Cranking RPM is
always a small fraction of running rpm. A "hard" geared
connection between the starter ring gear and the starter's
armature would be stressed very hard when the engine fires
of and attempts to accelerate the starter motor's mechanisms
as well.
In modern starters with high gear ratios between armature and
pinion shaft, the potential for stress is even higher. Should
the gear train stand the stress of accelerating the armature,
the next potentially destructive boundary to cross is keeping
the wires in the armature and bars on the commutators intact.
Centrifugal forces are high on armature operating at its
design speed. Spin it up by 5 to 10x its design speed and
the windings are thrown out or commutator bars extrude out
of their moorings.
Inertially engaged drives (Bendix) have a helix that pushes
the pinion gear out when the starter motor is accelerating
the system. If the engine starts and tries to push the
starter, then the same helix will retract the pinion. Starters
with positive engagement solenoids have some form of overrunning
clutch to disconnect the slower starter from the rapidly accelerating
engine.
Some feature to prevent back-driving a geared starter while
the pilot senses that the engine has started and releases
the start command is not an option.
Bob . . .
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all,
I have a Europa and I have decided that the only way I can get a decent taxi
light is to put it in the cowl. There isn't a lot of internal "Real Estate"
and I am looking for a small diameter HID light. Creativair sell as nice
one, but its OD is 4.46" which might be a bit big. I would be interested to
know if anyone else has sourced a smaller diameter HID light. Any
recommendations would be appreciated.
Thanks, Paul
Message 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Anyone need a nice 4.5" thermometer? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Anyone need a nice 4.5" thermometer?
I purchased 2 new in box surplus 4.5" Weiss, think vapor filled -40F to
110F with 5 foot capillary length for $15, see info below.
I looked up in McMaster Carr
http://www.mcmaster.com/
Then enter: 33125k21 in search, it looks close to C with 5 foot and 4.5
inch dial. The one I bought also comes with a nice aluminium probe flange,
looks like perhaps was mounted in some sort of duct on the flange?
Anyway much faster acting, easier to read and follow trends than the
digital I use now in shop. Pretty nice thing for $15.
As of 04-10-06 he has bout 20 left.
G+D Military Surplus Inc.
Army and Navy
175 Waverly Ave.
Patchogue, NY 11772
I talked to George, he said he will ship for cost. He takes all Major
Credit Cards, or will accept a check, and ship after it clears.
Phone 631-654-5785
Monday - Saturday
10AM - 6PM EST
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW How would one determine if the thermometer purchased was an oral, or
rectal?
THE TASTE!
Sorry couldn't resist, old ballooning joke from days of 5 inch hanging
thermometers (that I still use).
Message 26
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Hello Paul
"I am looking for a small diameter HID light"
Hella makes a Xenon with a smaller diameter. I think that is what Wicks
sells:
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=4546/index.html
One concern that I never got a good answer, will the frequency of the
Hella interfere with Avionoics?
We did some fooling with lights not too far back, no HIDs or Xenons.
Bottom line is it seems for especial landing, and taxi that the larger the
reflector the much more better it will illuminate what pilots wanna see.
The I think it was a 5 inch standard 12 volt landing light as used in a
Beechcraft was the absolute hands down winner. The next size down, think
3.5 was very good. Hmmm, I forget if i tried in the 3.5 a 100 watt and a
50, or perhaps it was a 50 watt and a 25. I forget, but the one with half
the watts was just a tad less overall.
We fooled with a borrowed box of 50 and 100 watt truck and car lights.
They were small in diameter, and just went from marginal to very poor.
The aircraft and halogens throw out some heat, so need to watch that.
You interested in a joint venture?
On our Mono need to fit some landing/taxi lights. Considering fooling
with:
http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php
Pro - Light 3 and 5 watt (10 watts on way??)
http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php?cPath=19
and 100,000 MCD 123 degree
http://www.besthongkong.com/product_info.php?cPath=3&products_id=34
Above not too much heat and fit in outrigger fairing?
Some dumb thoughts I have been having is to have a servo to move
illumination from landing to taxi mode. More dumb thoughts is to
incorporate a model aeroplane heading hold gyro, where you can choose
elevation and hit hold, now point nose up or down and beam stays focused!
Even some much more dumber than dumbness, can incorporate a yaw heading
hold gyro, that would allow S turns and or crab for landing and have beam
trained where you want in 2 axis. The Futaba technology heading hold gyros
does not use piezo, and heat/cold/calibration problems are supposedly
eliminated.
Anyway Best Hong Kong prices are very low, for a hundred 100,000MCD 10MM
are $.48 each. Have to fool with, but 3 or 4 in series are only 20mAs.
Lets say 3 in series and 33 in parallel=99 LEDs. Then 33 * 20 mAs = 660mAs
or .66 amps.
I have fooled quite a bit with LEDs on models, 10,000MCDs and results are
beyond impressive. My gut is 99 100,000MCD, or lets not push and use them
at 80,000MCDs, results may be???? Again these are $.48, I was paying over
$6.00 for the 10,000MCDs.
You can mix and match wide and shallow angle LEDs. Their offered Pro
Lights are wide angle, but aiming backwards into a parabolic reflector???
Ron Parigoris
Message 27
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:09 PM 4/9/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>List,
>
>Some of my avionics have molex connectors and I know Bob is an advocate of
>wire support just outside or as part of the crimp. The molex pins for the
>20-22 awg wiring seem awfully fragile. the crimps comprise two parts,
>which I
>assume are to grip the wire and then the insulation. However, these appear
>flimsy and would seem prone to vibration damage. Unlike D-Subs, they do
>not have a
>cover with secondary support. Am I worrying about nothing or is there
>something else I'm missing ? Any advice always a plus, and thanks...
When you say "molex" it's not very definitive. "Molex" is to
connectors as "GM" is to cars. What you're describing seems
to be b-crimp, sheet metal pins. If these are installed with
the right tool, they're quite satisfactory. Molex and AMP have
both supplied a variety of b-crimp connectors to aviation for
over 40 years with good service histories. I wouldn't advise
any worrying.
Bob . . .
Message 28
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net> recomendations
At 07:00 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
><paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I have a Europa and I have decided that the only way I can get a decent taxi
>light is to put it in the cowl. There isn't a lot of internal "Real Estate"
>and I am looking for a small diameter HID light. Creativair sell as nice
>one, but its OD is 4.46" which might be a bit big. I would be interested to
>know if anyone else has sourced a smaller diameter HID light. Any
>recommendations would be appreciated.
I think I have a source for a 3" round, or a 2"x5" rectangular. My
supplier used to have them, I can check and see if they're still
available. It would be in the $300-$400 range. Drop me a note off
list if you're interested.
Message 29
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
Hello Paul,
check
<http://www.hella.com/produktion/HellaCOM/WebSite/MiscContent/Download/Drivers/Lighting/Lightshow_Part1_GBu.pdf>
the DE series HID lights are 76mm diameter or about 3".
br Werner
Paul McAllister wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I have a Europa and I have decided that the only way I can get a decent taxi
>light is to put it in the cowl. There isn't a lot of internal "Real Estate"
>and I am looking for a small diameter HID light. Creativair sell as nice
>one, but its OD is 4.46" which might be a bit big. I would be interested to
>know if anyone else has sourced a smaller diameter HID light. Any
>recommendations would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 30
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
That are indeed the DE line lights from Hella
do not archive
rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
>Hello Paul
>
>"I am looking for a small diameter HID light"
>
>Hella makes a Xenon with a smaller diameter. I think that is what Wicks
>sells:
>http://www.wicksaircraft.com/
>http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=4546/index.html
>
>One concern that I never got a good answer, will the frequency of the
>Hella interfere with Avionoics?
>
>We did some fooling with lights not too far back, no HIDs or Xenons.
>
>Bottom line is it seems for especial landing, and taxi that the larger the
>reflector the much more better it will illuminate what pilots wanna see.
>
>The I think it was a 5 inch standard 12 volt landing light as used in a
>Beechcraft was the absolute hands down winner. The next size down, think
>3.5 was very good. Hmmm, I forget if i tried in the 3.5 a 100 watt and a
>50, or perhaps it was a 50 watt and a 25. I forget, but the one with half
>the watts was just a tad less overall.
>
>We fooled with a borrowed box of 50 and 100 watt truck and car lights.
>They were small in diameter, and just went from marginal to very poor.
>
>The aircraft and halogens throw out some heat, so need to watch that.
>
>You interested in a joint venture?
>
>On our Mono need to fit some landing/taxi lights. Considering fooling
>with:
>http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php
>Pro - Light 3 and 5 watt (10 watts on way??)
>http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php?cPath=19
>and 100,000 MCD 123 degree
>http://www.besthongkong.com/product_info.php?cPath=3&products_id=34
>
>Above not too much heat and fit in outrigger fairing?
>
>Some dumb thoughts I have been having is to have a servo to move
>illumination from landing to taxi mode. More dumb thoughts is to
>incorporate a model aeroplane heading hold gyro, where you can choose
>elevation and hit hold, now point nose up or down and beam stays focused!
>Even some much more dumber than dumbness, can incorporate a yaw heading
>hold gyro, that would allow S turns and or crab for landing and have beam
>trained where you want in 2 axis. The Futaba technology heading hold gyros
>does not use piezo, and heat/cold/calibration problems are supposedly
>eliminated.
>
>Anyway Best Hong Kong prices are very low, for a hundred 100,000MCD 10MM
>are $.48 each. Have to fool with, but 3 or 4 in series are only 20mAs.
>Lets say 3 in series and 33 in parallel=99 LEDs. Then 33 * 20 mAs = 660mAs
>or .66 amps.
>
>I have fooled quite a bit with LEDs on models, 10,000MCDs and results are
>beyond impressive. My gut is 99 100,000MCD, or lets not push and use them
>at 80,000MCDs, results may be???? Again these are $.48, I was paying over
>$6.00 for the 10,000MCDs.
>
>You can mix and match wide and shallow angle LEDs. Their offered Pro
>Lights are wide angle, but aiming backwards into a parabolic reflector???
>
>Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 31
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Quinn" <jquinn3@gmail.com>
PIAA makes several small form factor, high output lights for
automotive use. I have been using one for over a year with good
results.
On 4/11/06, Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
>
> That are indeed the DE line lights from Hella
>
> do not archive
>
> rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
> >
> >Hello Paul
> >
> >"I am looking for a small diameter HID light"
> >
> >Hella makes a Xenon with a smaller diameter. I think that is what Wicks
> >sells:
> >http://www.wicksaircraft.com/
> >http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=4546/index.html
> >
> >One concern that I never got a good answer, will the frequency of the
> >Hella interfere with Avionoics?
> >
> >We did some fooling with lights not too far back, no HIDs or Xenons.
> >
> >Bottom line is it seems for especial landing, and taxi that the larger the
> >reflector the much more better it will illuminate what pilots wanna see.
> >
> >The I think it was a 5 inch standard 12 volt landing light as used in a
> >Beechcraft was the absolute hands down winner. The next size down, think
> >3.5 was very good. Hmmm, I forget if i tried in the 3.5 a 100 watt and a
> >50, or perhaps it was a 50 watt and a 25. I forget, but the one with half
> >the watts was just a tad less overall.
> >
> >We fooled with a borrowed box of 50 and 100 watt truck and car lights.
> >They were small in diameter, and just went from marginal to very poor.
> >
> >The aircraft and halogens throw out some heat, so need to watch that.
> >
> >You interested in a joint venture?
> >
> >On our Mono need to fit some landing/taxi lights. Considering fooling
> >with:
> >http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php
> >Pro - Light 3 and 5 watt (10 watts on way??)
> >http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php?cPath=19
> >and 100,000 MCD 123 degree
> >http://www.besthongkong.com/product_info.php?cPath=3&products_id=34
> >
> >Above not too much heat and fit in outrigger fairing?
> >
> >Some dumb thoughts I have been having is to have a servo to move
> >illumination from landing to taxi mode. More dumb thoughts is to
> >incorporate a model aeroplane heading hold gyro, where you can choose
> >elevation and hit hold, now point nose up or down and beam stays focused!
> >Even some much more dumber than dumbness, can incorporate a yaw heading
> >hold gyro, that would allow S turns and or crab for landing and have beam
> >trained where you want in 2 axis. The Futaba technology heading hold gyros
> >does not use piezo, and heat/cold/calibration problems are supposedly
> >eliminated.
> >
> >Anyway Best Hong Kong prices are very low, for a hundred 100,000MCD 10MM
> >are $.48 each. Have to fool with, but 3 or 4 in series are only 20mAs.
> >Lets say 3 in series and 33 in parallel=99 LEDs. Then 33 * 20 mAs = 660mAs
> >or .66 amps.
> >
> >I have fooled quite a bit with LEDs on models, 10,000MCDs and results are
> >beyond impressive. My gut is 99 100,000MCD, or lets not push and use them
> >at 80,000MCDs, results may be???? Again these are $.48, I was paying over
> >$6.00 for the 10,000MCDs.
> >
> >You can mix and match wide and shallow angle LEDs. Their offered Pro
> >Lights are wide angle, but aiming backwards into a parabolic reflector???
> >
> >Ron Parigoris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|