Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:36 AM - Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 (Kingsley Hurst)
2. 05:19 AM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a certified plane? (Brian Lloyd)
3. 07:45 AM - Dynon FlightDeck 180 and Capacitive Fuel Senders (mchamberlain@runbox.com)
4. 07:47 AM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a certified (Kelly McMullen)
5. 12:21 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Dave N6030X)
6. 12:46 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Kevin Horton)
7. 01:04 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
8. 01:27 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a certified ()
9. 01:42 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Richard Riley)
10. 02:02 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Dave N6030X)
11. 02:15 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Brian Lloyd)
12. 02:51 PM - [ John Swartout ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
13. 04:16 PM - Re: Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 (Michael Burson)
14. 04:16 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Bill Denton)
15. 06:55 PM - Re: Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 (Ken)
16. 07:52 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Kelly McMullen)
17. 08:33 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Brian Lloyd)
18. 08:35 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Brian Lloyd)
19. 09:16 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (Kelly McMullen)
20. 10:03 PM - Re: Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 (Kingsley Hurst)
21. 10:42 PM - Electrical system for review and critique (John Swartout)
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: | Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
Bob,
I understand how there is no external control over a dynamo like there
is with an externally regulated alternator.
However, on studying the Z16 diagram (Rotax), I am wondering if there is
any reason why the common and NO contacts of the S704-1 Alternator OV
disconnect relay cannot be placed in series with one of the yellow
output wires of the dynamo.
I know you have been there before but on the Ducati regulator, the
following words are cast "with motor running never detach battery
cables"
Because I don't understand things well enough, I feel somewhat uneasy
going against the recommendation of the manufacturer and after having
another look at the circuit today, I couldn't help but wonder why we
cannot take the dynamo off line by breaking one of its leads.
I realise that in the event of a REAL OV event, the regulator is stuffed
anyway but in the case of a nuisance trip of the crowbar . . . .
Your comments would be most appreciated please, I'm to the point where I
now HAVE to make a decision.
Kingsley in Oz
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: What upgrades are possible on a certified plane? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
> I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to pull out the vacuum
> pump and vacuum instruments, put a B&C backup alternator on the
> vacuum pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with XM Weather and solid state
> Artificial Horizon at the center of a high-tech T-arrangement, re-
> do the instrument panel so the instruments are more logically laid
> out, put the critical engine monitoring instruments on the left
> side where I can see them, etc.
>
> What latitudes does one have to do that sort of thing? Can you put
> a B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
I have done some of this with certified aircraft in the past but not
as completely as you are suggesting. I have done it for a Piper
Comanche and a Piper Clipper.
What you are after is a one-time STC on a form 337 for alternations.
Fabricating a new panel and rearranging the locations of instruments
does not require a 337 so long as the it does not require
modification of any load-bearing structure. In my Comanche the panels
are on vibration isolators and are not structural. I was able to move
instruments to construct a "modern" 6-pack layout and center stack
for my radios without any problem.
In my Comanche I also constructed an e-bus out of what was the
avionics bus and added a second battery charged by the main battery
through a diode. The second battery could be directly switched to the
e-bus to power selected radios and TC. That did require a 337 but it
did not seem to give the FSDO heartburn. The only problem is, I did
that in 1985 and they seem to have been more flexible then than they
are now.
As for adding a B&C dynamo, you can probably forget it. The FAA tried
to put Bill Bainbridge out of business on the basis that he was
intentionally selling his stuff to people for their certified
aircraft (it was another Bob Hoover deal). They eventually backed
down under pressure from the community but it had to go all the way
up to the Administrator before it got fixed.
I also kept the vacuum instruments and added a Precise Flight standby
vacuum system. It requires me to reduce throttle to generate vacuum
in the intake manifold but it works just fine and will get you back
on the ground.
It would make so much sense to build an all-electric panel but the
FAA is risk-averse and probably won't buy into that idea. I am going
to try to talk the FSDO into signing off on adding a Dynon to the
panel without removing any of the existing instruments. If all the
certified stuff remains they shouldn't have a problem. The only worry
I have is that I will have to tap into the pitot-static system and
that may bother them. We'll see.
Good luck!
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-Exupry
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: | Dynon FlightDeck 180 and Capacitive Fuel Senders |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com" <mchamberlain@runbox.com>
Hi Folks,
Just got back from Oshkosh and after speaking with one of the Dynon reps it looks
like they have no solution (yet) for hooking the FlightDeck (or any of their
EMS's) up to the Van's capacitive fuel senders. As I have most of the wiring
already done for the 180 I really don't want to change that out now so I am wondering
if any of you folks have run in to this issue or have any thoughts on
how to make this work?
Thanks in advance for any help,
Mark - RV-7 (234C Res)
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50706#50706
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: What upgrades are possible on a certified |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
The Sporty's or other electric AI gives him an all electric backup to
the vacuum gyros without worrying about all the other stuff. Better than
the SVS system as no power setting changes needed, and FAA has already
blessed using electric AI to replace electric T&B or TC with an advisory
circular.
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>> I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to pull out the vacuum
>> pump and vacuum instruments, put a B&C backup alternator on the vacuum
>> pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with XM Weather and solid state Artificial
>> Horizon at the center of a high-tech T-arrangement, re-do the
>> instrument panel so the instruments are more logically laid out, put
>> the critical engine monitoring instruments on the left side where I
>> can see them, etc.
>>
>> What latitudes does one have to do that sort of thing? Can you put a
>> B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
>
> I have done some of this with certified aircraft in the past but not as
> completely as you are suggesting. I have done it for a Piper Comanche
> and a Piper Clipper.
>
> What you are after is a one-time STC on a form 337 for alternations.
> Fabricating a new panel and rearranging the locations of instruments
> does not require a 337 so long as the it does not require modification
> of any load-bearing structure. In my Comanche the panels are on
> vibration isolators and are not structural. I was able to move
> instruments to construct a "modern" 6-pack layout and center stack for
> my radios without any problem.
>
> In my Comanche I also constructed an e-bus out of what was the avionics
> bus and added a second battery charged by the main battery through a
> diode. The second battery could be directly switched to the e-bus to
> power selected radios and TC. That did require a 337 but it did not seem
> to give the FSDO heartburn. The only problem is, I did that in 1985 and
> they seem to have been more flexible then than they are now.
>
> As for adding a B&C dynamo, you can probably forget it. The FAA tried to
> put Bill Bainbridge out of business on the basis that he was
> intentionally selling his stuff to people for their certified aircraft
> (it was another Bob Hoover deal). They eventually backed down under
> pressure from the community but it had to go all the way up to the
> Administrator before it got fixed.
>
> I also kept the vacuum instruments and added a Precise Flight standby
> vacuum system. It requires me to reduce throttle to generate vacuum in
> the intake manifold but it works just fine and will get you back on the
> ground.
>
> It would make so much sense to build an all-electric panel but the FAA
> is risk-averse and probably won't buy into that idea. I am going to try
> to talk the FSDO into signing off on adding a Dynon to the panel without
> removing any of the existing instruments. If all the certified stuff
> remains they shouldn't have a problem. The only worry I have is that I
> will have to tap into the pitot-static system and that may bother them.
> We'll see.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
> 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-Exupry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for IFR?
Dave
At 09:45 AM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
>The Sporty's or other electric AI gives him an
>all electric backup to the vacuum gyros without
>worrying about all the other stuff. Better than
>the SVS system as no power setting changes
>needed, and FAA has already blessed using
>electric AI to replace electric T&B or TC with an advisory circular.
>
>Brian Lloyd wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>>On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>>
>>>I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to
>>>pull out the vacuum pump and vacuum
>>>instruments, put a B&C backup alternator on
>>>the vacuum pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with XM
>>>Weather and solid state Artificial Horizon at
>>>the center of a high-tech T-arrangement, re-do
>>>the instrument panel so the instruments are
>>>more logically laid out, put the critical
>>>engine monitoring instruments on the left side where I can see them, etc.
>>>
>>>What latitudes does one have to do that sort
>>>of thing? Can you put a B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
>>I have done some of this with certified
>>aircraft in the past but not as completely as
>>you are suggesting. I have done it for a Piper Comanche and a Piper Clipper.
>>What you are after is a one-time STC on a form
>>337 for alternations. Fabricating a new panel
>>and rearranging the locations of instruments
>>does not require a 337 so long as the it does
>>not require modification of any load-bearing
>>structure. In my Comanche the panels are on
>>vibration isolators and are not structural. I
>>was able to move instruments to construct a
>>"modern" 6-pack layout and center stack for my radios without any problem.
>>In my Comanche I also constructed an e-bus out
>>of what was the avionics bus and added a second
>>battery charged by the main battery through a
>>diode. The second battery could be directly
>>switched to the e-bus to power selected radios
>>and TC. That did require a 337 but it did not
>>seem to give the FSDO heartburn. The only
>>problem is, I did that in 1985 and they seem to
>>have been more flexible then than they are now.
>>As for adding a B&C dynamo, you can probably
>>forget it. The FAA tried to put Bill Bainbridge
>>out of business on the basis that he was
>>intentionally selling his stuff to people for
>>their certified aircraft (it was another Bob
>>Hoover deal). They eventually backed down under
>>pressure from the community but it had to go
>>all the way up to the Administrator before it got fixed.
>>I also kept the vacuum instruments and added a
>>Precise Flight standby vacuum system. It
>>requires me to reduce throttle to generate
>>vacuum in the intake manifold but it works just
>>fine and will get you back on the ground.
>>It would make so much sense to build an
>>all-electric panel but the FAA is risk-averse
>>and probably won't buy into that idea. I am
>>going to try to talk the FSDO into signing off
>>on adding a Dynon to the panel without removing
>>any of the existing instruments. If all the
>>certified stuff remains they shouldn't have a
>>problem. The only worry I have is that I will
>>have to tap into the pitot-static system and that may bother them. We'll see.
>>Good luck!
>>
>>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-Exupry
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
If this is a type-certificated aircraft, and you remove a component
(e.g. the vacuum AI), then the aircraft no longer conforms to the
type design, and the airworthiness certificate is no longer valid.
Kevin Horton
On 30 Jul 2006, at 15:14, Dave N6030X wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a Sporty's electric AI
> as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for IFR?
>
> Dave
>
>
> At 09:45 AM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
>> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> The Sporty's or other electric AI gives him an all electric backup
>> to the vacuum gyros without worrying about all the other stuff.
>> Better than the SVS system as no power setting changes needed, and
>> FAA has already blessed using electric AI to replace electric T&B
>> or TC with an advisory circular.
>>
>> Brian Lloyd wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-
>>> yak@lloyd.com>
>>> On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to pull out the
>>>> vacuum pump and vacuum instruments, put a B&C backup alternator
>>>> on the vacuum pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with XM Weather and
>>>> solid state Artificial Horizon at the center of a high-tech T-
>>>> arrangement, re-do the instrument panel so the instruments are
>>>> more logically laid out, put the critical engine monitoring
>>>> instruments on the left side where I can see them, etc.
>>>>
>>>> What latitudes does one have to do that sort of thing? Can you
>>>> put a B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
>>> I have done some of this with certified aircraft in the past but
>>> not as completely as you are suggesting. I have done it for a
>>> Piper Comanche and a Piper Clipper.
>>> What you are after is a one-time STC on a form 337 for
>>> alternations. Fabricating a new panel and rearranging the
>>> locations of instruments does not require a 337 so long as the it
>>> does not require modification of any load-bearing structure. In
>>> my Comanche the panels are on vibration isolators and are not
>>> structural. I was able to move instruments to construct a
>>> "modern" 6-pack layout and center stack for my radios without any
>>> problem.
>>> In my Comanche I also constructed an e-bus out of what was the
>>> avionics bus and added a second battery charged by the main
>>> battery through a diode. The second battery could be directly
>>> switched to the e-bus to power selected radios and TC. That did
>>> require a 337 but it did not seem to give the FSDO heartburn. The
>>> only problem is, I did that in 1985 and they seem to have been
>>> more flexible then than they are now.
>>> As for adding a B&C dynamo, you can probably forget it. The FAA
>>> tried to put Bill Bainbridge out of business on the basis that he
>>> was intentionally selling his stuff to people for their certified
>>> aircraft (it was another Bob Hoover deal). They eventually backed
>>> down under pressure from the community but it had to go all the
>>> way up to the Administrator before it got fixed.
>>> I also kept the vacuum instruments and added a Precise Flight
>>> standby vacuum system. It requires me to reduce throttle to
>>> generate vacuum in the intake manifold but it works just fine and
>>> will get you back on the ground.
>>> It would make so much sense to build an all-electric panel but
>>> the FAA is risk-averse and probably won't buy into that idea. I
>>> am going to try to talk the FSDO into signing off on adding a
>>> Dynon to the panel without removing any of the existing
>>> instruments. If all the certified stuff remains they shouldn't
>>> have a problem. The only worry I have is that I will have to tap
>>> into the pitot-static system and that may bother them. We'll see.
>>> Good luck!
>>>
>>> Brian Lloyd
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
N6030X@DaveMorris.com writes:
> Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for
> IFR?
>
> Dave
====================
Dave:
Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR condition.
The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are talking about
a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you wish to
change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start with a
337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum driven
system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with their blessing.
After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT, what
happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is electrical? No problem
... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops ... The
T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie - Dave ... FAA
does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical backup
system w/Buss?
NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it into
your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as your
back-up.
See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to button
your pants too.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a certified |
The best answer is come up with a game plane and go talk to your
local friendly FAA. What every I say or anyone says on this forum
does not matter. But this is my opinion on the subject as both
a owner of a few factory planes and builder and pilot of experimentals.
I also worked in certification for a large plane maker, that starts
with B.
You are correct modification of experimentals are pretty open. However
when it gets to EFIS / NAV for IFR flight in experimentals there is
some controversy. Do you need STC approved equip? That is another
story, but there are some parallels to your situatuin.
You are focused on Panel/avionics/electrical mods. I would divide
that up into two or three categories. We'll forget engine/airframe mods:
-flight/nav inst,
-engine/syst
-backup electrical power.
I did a lot of certification work on large transport categories and the
FAA works very happily on precedent's and no impact. This mean
if you do something that has been done and approved before or has
no effect on the aircraft if it works or does not work, for example a
back-up alternator, great, get it through easier. This is especially
true if it's been approved on your engine/airframe before. Some
companies may have a STC approved mod for a backup alternator.
Check B&C out for example.
Now flight instruments are another issue. They are more critical. I
don't think a FL190 is going to cut it, but if you want a Chelton
for $40,000 to $60,000, I think you could pull that off. If you pay
for the labor it could be very expensive MOD. I don't want to get
into owner maintenance but you can work on a certified plane, but
you may need direct supervision of an A&P for some things. Do
you have any A&P friend? In the end however the FAA needs to
approve the modification. Again early communcation with the FAA
is critical.
You could imagine a whole glass cockpit, bring it in and let them
design, install and approve it could cost well over $100,000. That
is penuts for a $30 mil jet, but a a single engine piston a bit steep.
Of course you can drop $8,000-$14,000 on a Garmin panel
mount GPS/NAV/COM. That's a no brainer. Again to pay to
have it installed you are looking to take a dent out of up to
$20,000. But why can't you use a Blue Mountain EFIS with
GPS nav or Grand Rapids EFIS/GPS? I don't know ask the
FAA. My guess is the answer is they are not STC'ed.
Don't quote me I know one guy was allowed the Dynon EFIS
while he retained his Vac instruments. Again it goes under the
FAA's no work, no harm, no foul rule. Keep the original and use
the glass as a back-up only, much like they way they treat a
handheld GPS. A handheld GPS is there as a refrence but it's
not hard mounted, so the FAA doesn't care, see no evil hear no evil.
You could install some portable EFIS using PDA's? I know that
is not what you want, but you could do that today. Heck the
FL190 EFIS could go in as long as you keep the Vac and
don't hard mount it. There are several other portable EFIS
and Engine monitoring systems you might be able to install
with no approvals, but that is not what you want I guess, since
it would require you keep all the old inst's/gauges.
Back up alternator, pretty benign modification. You should
be able to get a back-up Gen approved some how. There may
be existing STC's out there or you may be apple to get a
one off field approval. B&C can help you there since they
have some Cessna or Beech STC's and experience with the
FAA.
There are some STC approved engine monitors out there now from
JPI and EI. Of course you will pay the price of an experimental unit,
just like a EFIS. I think the price in around $5,000
I know some "experimental" engine monitors have been allowed to
be installed, as long as they kept the old original analog gauges; again
they are looking at a fail passive or non critical installation. Put it in, as
long as it does not affect the planes airworthiness, working or not.
Can I put experimental stuff into my certified plane?
Ans: Not easily but depends on the FAA branch you are talking
to. I think they are getting better being more consistent across
regions.
Look you can do anything. Heck you could in theory turn you Mooney
into an experimental. It has been done before, but it's not likely they
will allow you to do that to get an experimental panel you want.
Look at old DC-8's and 727's, they get new engine or glass cockpits.
It is about documentation and the equipment you are installing. There
is no reason you can't put a business jet glass cockpit in, but I
don't think you want to put that kind of money into a Mooney. Those
Vac insts and analog gauges are looking better all the time$$.
Really I call it inertia. Don't get caught into the shinny object, got
to have the best, latest. What is your Mooney going to do better
with a glass cockpit? You already have the analog gauges and
they work. In fact your panel looks pretty cool to me. Retro yes
but that has a charm. I know the latest RV or Lancair panel
at the airshow might give you panel envy, but I say so what.
It can be done but takes time, money, paperwork and may be a DER
sign off (designated engineering representative).
My advice is research as much as you can to find any STC's already
issued for your Mooney, whether a one OFF STC for an individual,
or one from a company that has blanket approval for a particular
piece of equip or mod.
Ask the FAA first. Have your paper work and research and present
it to them face to face. Do that before even thinking about doing it.
Call the companies whose equip you think you want and ask them.
If there is FAA precedence, previous approvals, they grease the wheels
and make your life easier. Do your research before you start
pulling stuff out. OLD does not mean bad. I know guys who have
done some pretty big mods, and others who could not get a
electronic tachometer into there Cessna. Look for products that
have been STC'ed already.
You did not mention airframe mods but there are tons of Mooney
Mod companies, LoPresti. In theory you could copy a LoPresti
cowl and say you want to flight test it and get a flight test approval,
essentially turning your plane into an experimental for the purpose
of testing the cowl. You could collect data and present it to the
FAA and say it still meets the FAR's. They then would approve
you cowl. In theory you could produce that cowl and sell it with
a STC, if the FAA gave you that approval. Not sure there are one
off approvals and ones with broad coverage. All approved mods
have to go through the process. You can do it our buy something
where the work was already done. In the case of the panel you
buy a STC approve EIFS, Engine Monitor, Back up Gen you are
good to go, or at least good to try for approval in you application.
I think you can get your panel layout better by cutting and
rearranging and that the FAA may not even care about.
Good Luck Geroge RV-4/RV-7
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
plane?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
<N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
I am buying a 1960 Mooney M20A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine which
of course includes a vacuum pump and the usual vacuum
instruments. The familiar T-arrangement on the instrument panel had
not been conceived of yet in 1960.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.
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: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
In a slightly different direction...
How about if I want to change the very rudimentary engine instruments
I have now to one of the all-in-one non-TSO'd glass engine
packages? Can that be done on a 337 form?
At 01:00 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>N6030X@DaveMorris.com writes:
>
> > Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> > Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for
> > IFR?
> >
> > Dave
>====================
>Dave:
>
>Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR condition.
>
>The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are talking about
>a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you wish to
>change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start with a
>337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum driven
>system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with
>their blessing.
>After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT, what
>happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is
>electrical? No problem
>... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops ... The
>T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie -
>Dave ... FAA
>does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical backup
>system w/Buss?
>
>NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it into
>your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as your
>back-up.
>
>See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to button
>your pants too.
>
>
>Barry
>"Chop'd Liver"
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Well, of course I can't prove it, but if I fly into IFR conditions by
accident in an aircraft that is not equipped for IFR, then I don't
have a glide slope either.
By the way, looking at the M20A type certificate, it does not list
any instruments at all. It says the vacuum pump is OPTIONAL for
VFR. Is there some other place the required instruments would be listed?
Looking over the maintenance logs, the vacuum pump has had to be
replaced so many times, it's not funny. It currently needs replacing
again. That does not sound like a very reliable or safe system,
compared to the electrical system.
I'm one of those people who looks at idiotic things and drives
authorities crazy by incessantly asking "why". I'm also a software
engineer and electronic tinkerer. I don't know anything about
vacuum, but I know a lot about electronics. I programmed my own EFIS
with moving map display and flight instruments on a CRT before the
term EFIS existed.
I understand the perverse logic of requiring an unreliable and unsafe
design to be perpetuated in order to be able to retreat behind the
semblance of security and safety that lies in massive amounts of
paperwork. But surely there must be ways of increasing safety and
reliability in spite of the bureaucrats. Maybe I'll just stick the
old vacuum instruments off on the right side of the panel and use
velcro to attach my "portable" equipment in front of me.
I guess what I really need to do is go introduce myself at the FSDO
and have a chat.
Dave Morris
At 03:00 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>N6030X@DaveMorris.com writes:
>
> > Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> > Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for
> > IFR?
> >
> > Dave
>====================
>Dave:
>
>Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR condition.
>
>The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are talking about
>a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you wish to
>change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start with a
>337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum driven
>system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with
>their blessing.
>After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT, what
>happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is
>electrical? No problem
>... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops ... The
>T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie -
>Dave ... FAA
>does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical backup
>system w/Buss?
>
>NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it into
>your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as your
>back-up.
>
>See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to button
>your pants too.
>
>
>Barry
>"Chop'd Liver"
>
>
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: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley
> <richard@riley.net>
>
> In a slightly different direction...
>
> How about if I want to change the very rudimentary engine
> instruments I have now to one of the all-in-one non-TSO'd glass
> engine packages? Can that be done on a 337 form?
You are in for a more difficult time as you are asking to remove and
replace the instruments with which the aircraft was certified and is
part of the original certification paperwork. Some outfits have STCs
to replace the standard gauges with their new electronic gauges but
you have to ask if they have an STC for your aircraft.
OTOH, if you are just adding something in and you leave the existing
gauges with which the aircraft was certified, you should have very
little problem.
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-Exupry
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: | [ John Swartout ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: John Swartout <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Lists: AeroElectric-List
Subject: Swartout Z-CH-801 Electrical System Schematic, one page.
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/jgswartout@earthlink.net.07.30.2006/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
----------------------------------------------------------
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: Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 |
I am also interested in the reply to this question. I have a Rotax 912 with
Ducati regulator with over 200 hours on it. It is wired per figure Z-7 which was
the latest
schematic for Rotax installations back in 1998.
The latest figure Z-16 Does have one of the Yellow wires from the Generator
wired in series with the Common and N.O. terminals of the relay?
Mike , Yuba City,CA
Kingsley Hurst <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au> wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst"
Bob,
I understand how there is no external control over a dynamo like there
is with an externally regulated alternator.
However, on studying the Z16 diagram (Rotax), I am wondering if there is
any reason why the common and NO contacts of the S704-1 Alternator OV
disconnect relay cannot be placed in series with one of the yellow
output wires of the dynamo.
I know you have been there before but on the Ducati regulator, the
following words are cast "with motor running never detach battery
cables"
Because I don't understand things well enough, I feel somewhat uneasy
going against the recommendation of the manufacturer and after having
another look at the circuit today, I couldn't help but wonder why we
cannot take the dynamo off line by breaking one of its leads.
I realise that in the event of a REAL OV event, the regulator is stuffed
anyway but in the case of a nuisance trip of the crowbar . . . .
Your comments would be most appreciated please, I'm to the point where I
now HAVE to make a decision.
Kingsley in Oz
__________________________________________________
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: | What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
JFTR, the Sporty's, and most of the other "backup" AIs include a battery
backup...
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:01 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
N6030X@DaveMorris.com writes:
> Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for
> IFR?
>
> Dave
====================
Dave:
Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR
condition.
The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are talking
about
a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you wish
to
change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start with a
337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum driven
system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with their
blessing.
After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT, what
happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is electrical? No
problem
... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops ...
The
T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie - Dave ...
FAA
does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical backup
system w/Buss?
NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it into
your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as your
back-up.
See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to button
your pants too.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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: Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hi Kingsley
FWIW I have done that with a 40 amp OV relay in series with the output
of a 20 amp John Deere dynamo (permanent magnet alternator). I reasoned
that a false trip was less likely to damage anything that way and also
that it provided a way of disconnecting the current to the regulator in
the event of a regulater problem/overheat. I did have some trips with
the old version of the homemade OVP circuit during starts with no harm
done. However with the latest version of the homemade OVP circuit I
haven't had a trip in ground testing or 25 flight hours.
Ken
Kingsley Hurst wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
>
>Bob,
>
>I understand how there is no external control over a dynamo like there
>is with an externally regulated alternator.
>
>However, on studying the Z16 diagram (Rotax), I am wondering if there is
>any reason why the common and NO contacts of the S704-1 Alternator OV
>disconnect relay cannot be placed in series with one of the yellow
>output wires of the dynamo.
>
>I know you have been there before but on the Ducati regulator, the
>following words are cast "with motor running never detach battery
>cables"
>
>Because I don't understand things well enough, I feel somewhat uneasy
>going against the recommendation of the manufacturer and after having
>another look at the circuit today, I couldn't help but wonder why we
>cannot take the dynamo off line by breaking one of its leads.
>
>I realise that in the event of a REAL OV event, the regulator is stuffed
>anyway but in the case of a nuisance trip of the crowbar . . . .
>
>Your comments would be most appreciated please, I'm to the point where I
>now HAVE to make a decision.
>
>Kingsley in Oz
>
>
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: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
If your vacuum pumps are failing in less than 500 hours regularly, there
is something wrong with the install, the garlock seal, the hoses or
filters. Get it fixed right, and a vacuum pump is a very reliable
system. There are companies selling them with over 1000hr warranties
today. I've seen a LOT more electrical failures than vacuum in 30 years
of flying. You need to consult with a patient IA on what is required on
your plane. You need the factory original equipment list, that came in
the FAA approved flight manual...the one with your tail number on it and
signed by the FAA. If you don't have it, contact Mooney. They have the
records AFAIK and will help. Mooney doesn't have on the type certificate
items other than engine/electrical, prop etc that affect W&B. Since it
was factory certified for IFR flight, I would expect those items to be
on the equipment list. AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for
early Mooneys. The only place to put one would be on the vacuum pump
pad. Unless one has been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a fortune
getting it approved.
Dave N6030X wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Well, of course I can't prove it, but if I fly into IFR conditions by
> accident in an aircraft that is not equipped for IFR, then I don't have
> a glide slope either.
>
> By the way, looking at the M20A type certificate, it does not list any
> instruments at all. It says the vacuum pump is OPTIONAL for VFR. Is
> there some other place the required instruments would be listed?
>
> Looking over the maintenance logs, the vacuum pump has had to be
> replaced so many times, it's not funny. It currently needs replacing
> again. That does not sound like a very reliable or safe system,
> compared to the electrical system.
>
> I'm one of those people who looks at idiotic things and drives
> authorities crazy by incessantly asking "why". I'm also a software
> engineer and electronic tinkerer. I don't know anything about vacuum,
> but I know a lot about electronics. I programmed my own EFIS with
> moving map display and flight instruments on a CRT before the term EFIS
> existed.
>
> I understand the perverse logic of requiring an unreliable and unsafe
> design to be perpetuated in order to be able to retreat behind the
> semblance of security and safety that lies in massive amounts of
> paperwork. But surely there must be ways of increasing safety and
> reliability in spite of the bureaucrats. Maybe I'll just stick the old
> vacuum instruments off on the right side of the panel and use velcro to
> attach my "portable" equipment in front of me.
>
> I guess what I really need to do is go introduce myself at the FSDO and
> have a chat.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
> At 03:00 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> N6030X@DaveMorris.com writes:
>>
>> > Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
>> > Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the
>> plane for
>> > IFR?
>> >
>> > Dave
>> ====================
>> Dave:
>>
>> Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR
>> condition.
>>
>> The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are
>> talking about
>> a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you
>> wish to
>> change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start
>> with a
>> 337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum
>> driven
>> system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with their
>> blessing.
>> After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT,
>> what
>> happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is electrical?
>> No problem
>> ... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops
>> ... The
>> T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie - Dave
>> ... FAA
>> does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical
>> backup
>> system w/Buss?
>>
>> NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it
>> into
>> your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as
>> your
>> back-up.
>>
>> See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to
>> button
>> your pants too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Barry
>> "Chop'd Liver"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Well, of course I can't prove it, but if I fly into IFR conditions
> by accident in an aircraft that is not equipped for IFR, then I
> don't have a glide slope either.
You don't need GS to fly IFR. It just means you are limited to non-
precision approaches.
> By the way, looking at the M20A type certificate, it does not list
> any instruments at all. It says the vacuum pump is OPTIONAL for
> VFR. Is there some other place the required instruments would be
> listed?
>
> Looking over the maintenance logs, the vacuum pump has had to be
> replaced so many times, it's not funny. It currently needs
> replacing again. That does not sound like a very reliable or safe
> system, compared to the electrical system.
Nope, it's not. It is horribly unreliable. But the FAA approves it.
It is a regulatory thing, not a safety or sanity thing.
> I'm one of those people who looks at idiotic things and drives
> authorities crazy by incessantly asking "why".
Ah, you are evil then. ;-)
> I'm also a software engineer and electronic tinkerer. I don't know
> anything about vacuum, but I know a lot about electronics. I
> programmed my own EFIS with moving map display and flight
> instruments on a CRT before the term EFIS existed.
You are not the first.
>
> I understand the perverse logic of requiring an unreliable and
> unsafe design to be perpetuated in order to be able to retreat
> behind the semblance of security and safety that lies in massive
> amounts of paperwork. But surely there must be ways of increasing
> safety and reliability in spite of the bureaucrats. Maybe I'll
> just stick the old vacuum instruments off on the right side of the
> panel and use velcro to attach my "portable" equipment in front of me.
>
> I guess what I really need to do is go introduce myself at the FSDO
> and have a chat.
That seems most sensible. Talk to them about what you want to do and
then get their blessing up-front.
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-Exupry
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: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 30, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> If your vacuum pumps are failing in less than 500 hours regularly,
> there is something wrong with the install, the garlock seal, the
> hoses or filters. Get it fixed right, and a vacuum pump is a very
> reliable system.
A *wet* vaccum pump is a reliable system. Dry vacuum pumps fail with
some regularity. If you get 500 hrs out of a dry pump you are doing
well.
> There are companies selling them with over 1000hr warranties today.
Wet pumps, yes. I have not seen a dry pump with a warranty that long.
> I've seen a LOT more electrical failures than vacuum in 30 years of
> flying.
Well, my experience is different. I have had more vacuum pumps fail
than alternators by a wide margin and when the alternator fails I
still have the 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-Exupry
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: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Rapco and Tempest both offer that warranty on dry pumps. I wouldn't
touch a wet pump, I don't want an oil soaked belly and I don't have room
for a triple stage separator. I'm over 500 hours on my current Rapco
pump now..and on my plane it drives a retractable step, and wing leveler
system as well as the gyros.
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
>> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> If your vacuum pumps are failing in less than 500 hours regularly,
>> there is something wrong with the install, the garlock seal, the hoses
>> or filters. Get it fixed right, and a vacuum pump is a very reliable
>> system.
>
> A *wet* vaccum pump is a reliable system. Dry vacuum pumps fail with
> some regularity. If you get 500 hrs out of a dry pump you are doing well.
>
>> There are companies selling them with over 1000hr warranties today.
>
> Wet pumps, yes. I have not seen a dry pump with a warranty that long.
>
>> I've seen a LOT more electrical failures than vacuum in 30 years of
>> flying.
>
> Well, my experience is different. I have had more vacuum pumps fail than
> alternators by a wide margin and when the alternator fails I still have
> the 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-Exupry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 |
Michael,
Many thanks for directing me to the new Z16 drawing. After some
experimentation, I found the version to which you refer. It appears
that on Bob's site, it depends on what route one takes as to what
version one gets. For example, if you click on the following link, you
will still get the old version.
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z16K.pdf>
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z16K.pdf
I'm very pleased to know that this method can be used so thank you once
again for your help.
Regards
Kingsley
Taroom Qld Aust
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Burson
Sent: Monday, 31 July 2006 9:12 AM
I am also interested in the reply to this question. I have a Rotax
912 with Ducati regulator with over 200 hours on it. It is wired per
figure Z-7 which was the latest
schematic for Rotax installations back in 1998.
The latest figure Z-16 Does have one of the Yellow wires from the
Generator wired in series with the Common and N.O. terminals of the
relay?
Mike , Yuba City,CA
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: | Electrical system for review and critique |
Bob and list:
My planned electrical system for my Zenith STOL CH-801 is now posted at:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/jgswartout@earthlink.net.07.30.2006/
for your review and critique. A description accompanies the schematic.
Comments
pro and con are solicited and welcome.
John
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! --
|