Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:41 AM - Re: Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 (Kingsley Hurst)
2. 04:09 AM - Vacuum pumps and gyros (was: What upgrades are possible on a) (Brian Lloyd)
3. 07:01 AM - Antenna Connections (DJones)
4. 08:29 AM - Re: Antenna Connections (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
5. 09:07 AM - Re: Antenna Connections (DJones)
6. 09:13 AM - Re: Vacuum pumps and gyros (was: What upgrades (Kelly McMullen)
7. 10:06 AM - Re: Using character map (Ernest Christley)
8. 11:09 AM - Re: Re: Antenna Connections (Brian Lloyd)
9. 11:26 AM - Re: Vacuum pumps and gyros (was: What upgrades (Brian Lloyd)
10. 12:09 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (OldBob Siegfried)
11. 12:13 PM - Re: STC for standby generator on a Mooney (Dave N6030X)
12. 12:30 PM - Re: What upgrades are possible on a (OldBob Siegfried)
13. 01:16 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a Mooney (Brian Lloyd)
14. 03:33 PM - electrical system for review and critique (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com)
15. 05:15 PM - Matronics Email List Web Server Upgrade Tonight... (Matt Dralle)
16. 06:27 PM - Re: electrical system for review and critique (John Swartout)
17. 07:03 PM - Re: electrical system for review and critique (Ken)
18. 09:05 PM - Starter switch for LASAR ignition (Keith Hallsten)
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>
Ken,
> I reasoned that a false trip was less likely to damage anything
Exactly what I was thinking too.
> I did have some trips with the old version of the homemade OVP circuit
during starts with no harm done.
Also exactly what I was hoping to hear.
Your response much appreciated thanks mate.
Kingsley
Taroom Qld Aust
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: | Vacuum pumps and gyros (was: What upgrades are possible |
on a)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:12 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> 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.
There are worse things than oil on the belly ... like vacuum pump
failure. But then again, you probably have not lived with a radial
engine (otherwise known as the automatic airframe lubrication
system). I guess I accept a well-lubricated airframe as more or less
normal. Just remember, an oil-soaked airframe is less likely to
corrode. ;-)
> 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.
You know, that claim is actually funny. You are touting the
reliability of a system that has passed 500 hours. If you had
alternators that were failing every 500 hours you would probably be
really annoyed with their poor quality. And if the alternator fails
you still have the battery to proved backup. There is no inherent
backup with a vacuum system.
Engines that go to TBO rarely fail catastrophically. They have
problems but they keep working. Surprisingly most gyros fail
gradually too. Vacuum pumps fail, jam, shear their couplings, and
become inert hunks of junk with no warning. (I know, someone is going
to point out that dry pumps may produce more graphite at the output
before they fail but hey, who looks at that and can really tell if it
is more or less.) Now consider the consequences for many pilots when
two of their three gyros stop working in IFR conditions. I wonder
which is more likely to be survivable under IFR conditions: engine
failure or gyro failure? (And we can argue about that too but the
fact that it is arguable says something, don't you think?)
If I were starting from scratch on an airplane there is no way I
would include a vacuum system. Where I would have a vacuum pump I can
have a second source of electrical power. I can use that power not
only for my gyros but also for lights, radios, etc. So I end up with
a backup power source that can be used with all my devices. Also,
wire is smaller, lighter, and easier to route than a vacuum hose. I'm
sorry but to argue the merits of air-powered gyros strikes me as just
plain silly. The only reason to keep air powered gyros is because the
FAA won't let you change. (And that is telling also.)
I know, someone is going to jump in here and tell me that air-powered
gyros are less expensive. I know they are. But if you are going to
fly IFR your life depends more on the health of your gyros than on
just about anything else. If you are worried about the cost then get
a cheaper GPS or nav-com. Don't skimp on your gyros.
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: | Antenna Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DJones" <pilotx2@zianet.com>
I would like to know what is the best way to connect the marker beacon antenna
coax to the audio panel. I also have an old Narco Nav 12 which uses some very
small coax type cable, is this just shielded wire?
I remember seeing something about putting a BNC connector on small shielded cable
on Bob's site, but I can't find it now.
Thanks
Don
--------
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50996#50996
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: Antenna Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 7/31/06 10:06:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
pilotx2@zianet.com writes:
> I would like to know what is the best way to connect the marker beacon
> antenna coax to the audio panel. I also have an old Narco Nav 12 which
uses
> some very small coax type cable, is this just shielded wire?
> I remember seeing something about putting a BNC connector on small
shielded
> cable on Bob's site, but I can't find it now.
> Thanks
> Don
==============================
Don:
What audio panel do you have? Is the marker beacon receiver part of the
audio panel or is there a separate box? Since you have a NARCO NAV 12 I'm
guessing that you have a NARCO Audio Panel. Some of them did have separate marker
beacon receiver boxes.
Now, as for connecting the NAV 12. Some of them did have a separate BNC
connector and even if it did not there is a location for the connector. It can
be
paralleled up with the lousy coax connection on the edge card connector. O!
Nope ... it is NOT just a shield it is a small diameter 50 ohm coax. Probably
RG-117.
I don't know if it was on Bob's site that you read about the BNC connector
but I know I posted a few notes/articles on coax and the BNC connector.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
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: Antenna Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DJones" <pilotx2@zianet.com>
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/31/06 10:06:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> pilotx2@zianet.com writes:
>
>
> > I would like to know what is the best way to connect the marker beacon
> > antenna coax to the audio panel. I also have an old Narco Nav 12 which
> > uses
> >
>
>
> > some very small coax type cable, is this just shielded wire?
> > I remember seeing something about putting a BNC connector on small
> > shielded
> >
>
>
> > cable on Bob's site, but I can't find it now.
> > Thanks
> > Don
> >
> > ==============================
> >
>
> Don:
>
> What audio panel do you have? Is the marker beacon receiver part of the
> audio panel or is there a separate box? Since you have a NARCO NAV 12 I'm
> guessing that you have a NARCO Audio Panel. Some of them did have separate marker
> beacon receiver boxes.
>
> Now, as for connecting the NAV 12. Some of them did have a separate BNC
> connector and even if it did not there is a location for the connector. It can
be
> paralleled up with the lousy coax connection on the edge card connector. O!
> Nope ... it is NOT just a shield it is a small diameter 50 ohm coax. Probably
> RG-117.
>
> I don't know if it was on Bob's site that you read about the BNC connector
> but I know I posted a few notes/articles on coax and the BNC connector.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
> "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
> time."
> Yamashiada
Sorry, all the info would help huh, It is a Garmin GMA340 audio panel. I wasn't
sure how to connect RG-58 directly to the panel since the pins are too small.
I thought about connecting a wire to the shield just like every other shielded
wire, but wondered if there was a better way.
I saw the small antenna lead on the old Nav 12 and wondered if that was coax or
just shielded wire. It sure would work nice if it is available.
Thanks
Don
--------
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=51039#51039
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: Vacuum pumps and gyros (was: What upgrades |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
I've seen a fair number of alternator failures in a lot less than 500
hours, and/or regulator failures, over voltage failures, noise filter
failures.
If you fly a radial you expect oil. If you fly a flat four or six, you
don't. While wet pumps are reliable, they do waste oil, require
sizeable oil separators and are very costly compared to dry pumps. I
can easily buy 4-5 dry pumps for what a wet pump and oil separator
install costs. Vacuum pumps failing from sheared quill and unexpected
causes are relatively rare, and mean someone screwed up the install
and didn't clean the lines/replace the old cracked lines or otherwise
contaminated the suction side. If you do a proper install, failures
are rather rare. I really wasn't defending the use of a vacuum system
per se. I was pointing out that the most cost effective backup is
replacing T&B/TC with electric AI, or if you have space, just putting
in electric AI. Gives you true dual system, with only minor loss of
heading information if vacuum fails.
Quoting Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:12 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> You know, that claim is actually funny. You are touting the reliability
> of a system that has passed 500 hours. If you had alternators that were
> failing every 500 hours you would probably be really annoyed with their
> poor quality. And if the alternator fails you still have the battery to
> proved backup. There is no inherent backup with a vacuum system.
>
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: Using character map |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> Using Character Map
> You can use Character Map to copy and paste special characters into
>your documents, such as the trademark symbol, special mathematical
>characters, or a character from the character set of another language.
>
> Open Character Map.
>
> Notes
>
> a.. To open Character Map, click Start, point to All Programs,
>point to Accessories, point to System Tools, and then click Character
>Map.
> b.. For information about using Character Map, click Help in
>Character Map.
>
> Copied the above from Start, Help, character map in search field.
> David Carter
>
>
That only works on a Windows machine, and only for the font which the
author is using at the moment. What Character Map actually does is load
an ASCII code. The font files have little pictures (called glyphs) that
correspond to each code. A different character set may have different
glyphs or none at all. Scroll through the fonts with Character Map, and
see how many are missing various characters (usually replaced with a
dash, if I remember correctly.)
Putting exotic ASCII codes in a public message that can only be
interpreted by a subset of the audience could be considered
anti-social. Many people use text mail readers, different fonts, or
even foreign character mappings. For instance, I use Thunderbird on
Linux, and what I got from your example was "Degrees (X=B0) is 0176 and
(X=B3) is 0179." Not exactly useful. Wouldn't it actually be less
difficult to just type degF or degC? (I can only assume that's what you
meant to represent.) There's less to remember, and you actually get
your message across to everyone.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
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: Antenna Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:03 PM, DJones wrote:
> Sorry, all the info would help huh, It is a Garmin GMA340 audio
> panel. I wasn't sure how to connect RG-58 directly to the panel
> since the pins are too small. I thought about connecting a wire to
> the shield just like every other shielded wire, but wondered if
> there was a better way.
If they did not provide an obvious antenna connector, such as a BNC,
you will need to connect your coax to the edge connectors. What you
suggest, connecting a smaller-gauge wire to the coax braid, is the
correct way to do this. I usually strip back plenty of jacket and
braid so I have a couple of inches of center conductor. I get some
smaller-gauge tefzel wire, strip it, wrap it around the shortened
braid, solder, and then apply heat shrink over it. Now you just have
two leads to solder to the pins of your edge connector.
Now, some distance away where it is convenient to get to later you
should terminate the coax in a crimp-on in-line female BNC connector.
This will let you easily disconnect the antenna for testing or
trouble shooting.
Given how little it matters, and at the risk of horrifying some of
you, you might want to just twist some wire together and solder to a
bulkhead BNC connector right at the audio panel. (Or just use a
couple of inches of your shielded audio cable.) 75MHz is low enough
in frequency and the signal is so strong, that the little impedance
bump caused by a couple of inches of non-50-ohm coax is not going to
cause any problem.
> I saw the small antenna lead on the old Nav 12 and wondered if
> that was coax or just shielded wire. It sure would work nice if it
> is available.
Did the Nav 12 have a built-in MB receiver? It has been years and
years since I have used the Nav-12 (like 30+). I like the old Nav-122
as it was a complete ILS system in a box, receiver, indicators,
everything. It even had the lights for the MB receiver there but I
don't think the Nav-122 had the MB receiver built in. Hmm, it may
have as I think there were some with three antenna connectors. Two
would have been VOR/LOC and GS so the third could only have been MB.
As for smaller coax, there is RG-141 which is 50-ohm coax with an OD
of a little more than 1/8". There is a version using a teflon
insulator which is RG-187 if I recall properly. You can find 50 and
75 ohm coax in all kinds of ODs. Smaller diameter coax will have
greater loss but may be easier to handle in a wiring bundle. For the
frequencies we use, up to GPS, a couple of feet of small-diameter
coax is not going to have a discernible effect on the performance of
your systems.
The only places you should not use really small diameter coax is for
the transponder and DME antennas. These are both transmitters with
high peak power levels and the smaller coax will not have as good a
voltage handling rating as larger coax.
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 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: Vacuum pumps and gyros (was: What upgrades |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> I've seen a fair number of alternator failures in a lot less than
> 500 hours, and/or regulator failures, over voltage failures, noise
> filter failures.
Sure they fail. I have seen engine failures at much less than TBO too
but, in general, alternators last longer than vacuum pumps by a wide
margin. And the rest of what I said, that there is an intrinsic
backup from the battery that doesn't exist with a vacuum pump, is
also true.
> If you fly a radial you expect oil.
Surprisingly, this is not necessarily true. I have seen dry radials.
(I used to own one.) When they are flinging oil everywhere it usually
means something needs to be tightened. Of course, flying
> If you fly a flat four or six, you don't. While wet pumps are
> reliable, they do waste oil,
Well, no, not really. Sure some oil goes out the pump exhaust but it
is not a lot of oil. Let me put it this way -- I could not discern
the difference in oil consumption between wet and dry vacuum pumps.
The engine uses so much more than the vacuum pump does that you just
can't tell.
> require sizeable oil separators
It depends on your point of view. *I* don't think it requires an oil
separator but a lot of other people seem to think so.
> and are very costly compared to dry pumps. I can easily buy 4-5 dry
> pumps for what a wet pump and oil separator install costs.
An overhauled wet pump is not all that expensive. It is certainly
worth considering if you have a vacuum system and your dry pump has
failed.
> Vacuum pumps failing from sheared quill and unexpected causes are
> relatively rare,
> and mean someone screwed up the install and didn't clean the lines/
> replace the old cracked lines or otherwise contaminated the suction
> side. If you do a proper install, failures are rather rare.
You should check with your local repair station if you think that is
true.
The truth of the matter is simple:
1. A wet vacuum pump is more reliable than a dry vacuum pump.
2. An electrical system, almost ANY electrical system, is more
reliable than a vacuum system for powering gyros. The electrical
systems proposed by Electric Bob are so far more reliable than vacuum
pumps that they aren't even in the same universe.
> I really wasn't defending the use of a vacuum system per se. I was
> pointing out that the most cost effective backup is replacing T&B/
> TC with electric AI, or if you have space, just putting in electric
> AI. Gives you true dual system, with only minor loss of heading
> information if vacuum fails.
Or go to an all electric panel and have your no-single-point-of-
failure electrical system provide reliable power to your gyros too.
Fortunately OBAM aircraft owners have that option. Most of the new
aircraft are going to all-electric panels. They aren't going to the
trouble of getting them certified with the hidebound FAA just for
chuckles.
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 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: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Afternoon Barry,
Been away at Oshkosh for a while so may have missed
many important portions of this thread, but you seem
to be saying that if something came on the airplane
from the factory and it is listed in the equipment
list, that it would take a 337 to get it off.
If that is your assertion, I do not believe it is
correct.
There are many optional items added to many aircraft
at the factory. If it is listed as optional in the
TCDSs, all it takes is a logbook entry to legally
remove that component. Likewise, if it is listed as a
piece of optional equipment in the TCDSs, it can be
added with nothing more than an entry in the ship's
papers by an appropriately rated maintenance
technician.
In any airplane that was type certificated until very
recently, there is NO requirement for any instrument
power redundancy. You can have all electric or all
pneumatic. There is no particular source specified.
The instruments that are required for IFR flight are
as listed in the pertinent FARs. Once again, no
redundancy required.
The only things that MUST be on the airplane are those
things listed as required equipment and/or those
devices listed as required by the FARs for the
operation to be conducted.
Does that statement sound correct to you? It does to
me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
--- FLYaDIVE@aol.com 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"
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: STC for standby generator on a Mooney |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom would I be paying
money to, and for what?
Dave Morris
At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
>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.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Afternoon Kevin,
I think you will find that very few airplanes list in
their Type Certificate Data Sheets specifically what
instrumentation is required for IFR flight. Such data
is found in the FARs regulating IFR operations.
In addition, only the most recently certificated
aircraft have any requirement for redundancy of power
sources.
For the vast majority of the GA fleet, any certified
electric gyro can be used in lieu of any pneumatically
powered one.
Nothing more than an entry in the ship's papers by an
appropriately certificated technician is required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
--- Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com> wrote:
> --> 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
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: STC for standby generator on a Mooney |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 31, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom would I be paying
> money to, and for what?
I think that Kelly was referring to getting a full general STC rather
than a one-time STC. The former may require flight testing and a lot
of paperwork to the FAA, as well as a fairly long lead time. Time and
aircraft time cost money. I agree with him if that is what he was
thinking.
As for a one-time STC, that is easier (and cheaper) to get. Still,
you are going to probably end up making several trips to the FSDO and
you are probably going to have to submit drawings and descriptions to
the engineering folks. That may not cost a lot but will certainly eat
up some time.
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 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: | electrical system for review and critique |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
hey John
Im no expert so everything I say is suspect... but through Bobs
AeroElectric Connection and this list I have managed to wire my RV-7A more
or less according to Z-13/8 and hey - everything on the panel now lights up
when I tell it to.
A couple minor points: I think the ANL- 40 current limiter is probably
fine instead of the -60 if you only have the 40 amp alternator
On your load analysis, note that the battery contactor is shut off in the
event of main alternator failure and switching over to the SD-8, so you
actually have another 1 amp to play with on your endurance buss under this
condition
Im not very familiar with your modifications to the Z-13 alternator
regulator wiring that I guess you "borrowed" Z-14. Remind me - what are
you accomplishing with all those diodes?
Similarly, although there has been some discussion of this on the list, I
still dont get what the benefit is for the SD-8 self-excitation. What is
the scenario where I would wish I had this? (others welcome to jump in
here as you see fit!)
regards,
Erich Weaver
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: | Matronics Email List Web Server Upgrade Tonight... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
This evening I will be upgrading the Matronics Web Server hardware to a new Quad-processor
2.8Ghz Xeon system (yes, 4-physical CPUs!) with an Ultra 320 SCSI
Raid 5 disk system and 5GB of DDR2 RAM.
As with the older system, the new system will be running the latest version of
Redhat Linux. Most of the software configuration work is already done for the
migration, but I still have to sync all of the archive and forum data from the
old system to the new system. I am anticipating about 2 to 3 hours of downtime
for me to fully make the transition, although it could be considerable less
if everything goes according to plan.
The Matronics Webserver will be *UNavailable* from the Internet during the work,
and you will receive a time-out if you try to connect during the upgrade.
Email List Distribution will be *available* during the upgrade of the Web Server,
and List message distribution will function as normal.
This represents a significant performance upgrade for the Matronics Web Server
and you should notice nicely improved searching and surfing performance following
the upgrade!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: | electrical system for review and critique |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 6:08 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
hey John
Im no expert so everything I say is suspect... but through Bobs
AeroElectric Connection and this list I have managed to wire my RV-7A more
or less according to Z-13/8 and hey - everything on the panel now lights up
when I tell it to.
Erich I welcome your comments, expert or not. The vetting process
happens when hard questions have to be answered--no matter who asks
them.
A couple minor points: I think the ANL- 40 current limiter is probably
fine instead of the -60 if you only have the 40 amp alternator
In a May 9,2005 reply to jerry@mc.net, Bob N. said to use a MAX60
ANL current limiter for a 40A alternator, or a MAX80 for a 60A
alternator.
On your load analysis, note that the battery contactor is shut off in the
event of main alternator failure and switching over to the SD-8, so you
actually have another 1 amp to play with on your endurance buss under this
condition
Aha! You are correct. I repeated the error I saw on someone else's
load analysis offered on this list. I believe one would indeed switch off
the DC Power Master Switch after switching on the E-bus Alternate Feed
Switch, which would shut off the battery contactor. Good point.
(Maybe, if one could drive the endurance load low enough, one of those
shake-up LCD flashlights could be modified to supply the power,
provided one had a free hand for shaking it.(;p)
Im not very familiar with your modifications to the Z-13 alternator
regulator wiring that I guess you "borrowed" Z-14. Remind me - what are
you accomplishing with all those diodes?
The pure Fig. Z-13/8 drawing shows a "Ford" type generic voltage
regulator, which I am not using, so I spliced in the appropriate
section of Fig. Z-14 which shows a B&C LR-3 Alternator Controller,
which I am using. It appears, however that I left out the overvoltage
warning light. I don't remember why (most of this I did about 12
months ago), but it may be that since I will be using the Grand Rapids
Technologies Model 4000 EIS for low-voltage warning, I may have been
intending to use it for overvoltage warning as well. It comes with a
blinding indicator light which comes on when any user-set parameter is
violated. I'd like Bob to comment on this, as I'm finished drilling
holes in the panel and plan to paint it in a few days. Now would be a good
time to drill one more if necessary.
"All those diodes" are bridge rectifiers, Radio Shack No. 276-1185,
as specified by Bob in multiple posts, many of them recently. One is for
the self-excitation feature for the SD-8 (Fig. Z-25) (upper right
corner of my schematic), and the other is part of the circuit for the PM
starter to prevent damage from run-on. All I know about diodes is that
they are like cowboys herding electrons in the proper direction.
Similarly, although there has been some discussion of this on the list, I
still dont get what the benefit is for the SD-8 self-excitation. What is
the scenario where I would wish I had this? (others welcome to jump in
here as you see fit!)
Touche'! Granted--the likelihood of the main alternator dying and
the battery giving up the ghost on one fateful day is, to borrow a
simile from Bob, on a par with prop bolt failure. I guess, for the price
and weight of a bridge rectifier and a resistor, it seems silly not to
have that one improbable base covered.
regards,
Erich Weaver
Thanks again for your views, Erich.
John
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: electrical system for review and critique |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hi John
I believe that the EIS is fine as a hi voltage warning.
If you have functioning overvoltage protection, it will never illuminate
anyway. Its low voltage warning will then be important though.
Ken
>It appears, however that I left out the overvoltage
>warning light. I don't remember why (most of this I did about 12
>months ago), but it may be that since I will be using the Grand Rapids
>Technologies Model 4000 EIS for low-voltage warning, I may have been
>intending to use it for overvoltage warning as well. It comes with a
>blinding indicator light which comes on when any user-set parameter is
>violated. I'd like Bob to comment on this, as I'm finished drilling
>holes in the panel and plan to paint it in a few days. Now would be a good
>time to drill one more if necessary.
>
>
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: | Starter switch for LASAR ignition |
Does anyone know whether there would be a problem using a separate starter
push button with a LASAR electronic ignition? All of Unison Industries'
documentation shows the classic "OFF - LEFT - RIGHT - BOTH - START"
keyswitch, but I would rather have the option to get the engine turning
before firing up the ignition. I don't know if the LASAR will be happy
starting on only one ignition, or coming alive when the engine is already
moving. I bought a starter pushbutton form B&C a few years ago, before I
was committed to the LASAR ignition, and I'd still like to use it.
Keith Hallsten
Velocity XLFG, N585V (reserved)
Roseville, CA
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! --
|