---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 04/10/06: 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:45:32 AM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Air Speed Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:11:17 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why use starter contactor? From: "Eric M. Jones" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:29:30 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why use starter contactor? From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:00:50 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why use starter contactor? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:24:37 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Overvoltage, faulty switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:46 PM 4/9/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Vern Little > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:05:18 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why use starter contactor? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:06 AM 4/10/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:09:37 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:32:44 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" 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 --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:57:21 PM PST US From: Harley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley 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)" > >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 >--> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:01:10 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd Bill Dube wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:07:37 PM PST US From: "Doug Windhorn" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" 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" Sent: Monday, 10 April, 2006 11:57 Subject: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:17:06 PM PST US From: MWilli7119@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:18:09 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > >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 >--> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:25:28 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube 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 > >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)" >> >>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 >>--> >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:52:12 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube 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" > >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" >To: >Sent: Monday, 10 April, 2006 11:57 >Subject: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery > > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube >> >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:52:12 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:28:48 PM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:15:00 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:57 PM 4/10/2006 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:15:00 PM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" 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 > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:58:27 PM PST US From: Jim Michael Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Michael 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:24:22 PM PST US From: "Alex Peterson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why use starter contactor? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > --> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:28:34 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: (Almost) perfect airplane battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:34:59 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why use starter contactor? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:21 PM 4/10/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > > --> > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:05:11 PM PST US From: "Paul McAllister" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:24:23 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Anyone need a nice 4.5" thermometer? From: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:12 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations From: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:27:51 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Molex Pins --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:40 PM PST US From: Richard Riley recomendations Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley recomendations At 07:00 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:57:20 PM PST US From: Werner Schneider Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider Hello Paul, check the DE series HID lights are 76mm diameter or about 3". br Werner Paul McAllister wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:00:35 PM PST US From: Werner Schneider Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider That are indeed the DE line lights from Hella do not archive rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:50:44 PM PST US From: "James Quinn" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Small diameter HID Taxi light recomendations --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Quinn" 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 wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider > > That are indeed the DE line lights from Hella > > do not archive > > rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >