Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:25 AM - Is this solder okay? (Speedy11@aol.com)
2. 03:42 AM - Re: Installation Location of LR3C regulator (bob noffs)
3. 04:35 AM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Brian Lloyd)
4. 05:57 AM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Kelly McMullen)
5. 06:29 AM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (OldBob Siegfried)
6. 06:31 AM - wig-wag? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:22 AM - Re: Z-diagrams moved?? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:22 AM - Re: Is this solder okay? (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
9. 07:25 AM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Bob McCallum)
10. 08:24 AM - Re: Re: grounds (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 08:28 AM - Re: Z-diagrams moved?? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 08:35 AM - OT-accident over lake MI (rd2@evenlink.com)
13. 09:03 AM - Re: OT-accident over lake MI (Harley)
14. 09:32 AM - 8.33 kHz comms (sportav8r@aol.com)
15. 10:58 AM - avionics ordering tip (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com)
16. 11:49 AM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Don Honabach)
17. 11:50 AM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Kelly McMullen)
18. 12:17 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Bill Denton)
19. 12:43 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Dave N6030X)
20. 01:32 PM - MPJA speed control (Ernest Christley)
21. 01:55 PM - Re: OT-accident over lake MI (Kevin Horton)
22. 01:55 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Buckaroo Banzai)
23. 02:22 PM - Re: avionics ordering tip (B Tomm)
24. 02:22 PM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Brian Lloyd)
25. 02:32 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Brian Lloyd)
26. 02:36 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Brian Lloyd)
27. 02:55 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Bill Denton)
28. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (OldBob Siegfried)
29. 03:30 PM - Re: avionics ordering tip (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com)
30. 03:41 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Dave N6030X)
31. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Brian Lloyd)
32. 04:00 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Kelly McMullen)
33. 04:20 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Bill Denton)
34. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: avionics ordering tip (Brian Lloyd)
35. 04:51 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Brian Lloyd)
36. 05:06 PM - CB Power Source (Speedy11@aol.com)
37. 05:14 PM - Re: GRT/ SL-40 (Carl Morgan)
38. 06:38 PM - Re: Re: GRT/ SL-40 (Brian Lloyd)
39. 07:51 PM - Re: CB Power Source (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
40. 08:22 PM - Re: CB Power Source (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
41. 10:29 PM - Alternator failure quits engine ()
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: | Is this solder okay? |
I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to use for
connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using fastons. The soldering I need
to do is on small rotary switches and using fastons is not feasible.
So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable?
Stan Sutterfield
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: Installation Location of LR3C regulator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
hi tom,
several months back i asked the same question and got about the same
answer. logic on that one was to keep the capicator forward of the metal
firewall and close to the regulator. atleast they are consistant.
bob n.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:44 PM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 04:53 AM 8/1/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>>Have any of you put the B & C regulator on the back side of the firewall
>>as suggested on the installation sheet? Lancair mounted mine on the
>>front side. They seem to operate just fine no matter where they are. How
>>important to longevity is the location? Comments Bob??? or anyone!
>>Thanks in advance...
>
> EVERY manufacturer would like to have you place THEIR product
> in the most benign environment possible. But the bottom line is
> that short of bolting the LR3 to an engine or exhaust part,
> it will be fine on the forward side of the firewall also.
>
> Of the gazillions of automotive regulators mounted under
> the hoods of cars in some of the most stressful environments,
> how many manufacturers would stay in business very long if
> their particular electro-whizzie was ill-suited to compete?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Is this solder okay? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
> I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to
> use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using
> fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches
> and using fastons is not feasible.
> So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable?
Normally the tin content is listed first and the stuff you want is
very close to 60% tin and 40% lead. This is known as 60/40 solder. If
what you are looking at is 40/60 you definitely don't want it.
The ideal solder for electrical connections is actually 63% tin 37%
lead (63/37). This is also known as eutectic solder. It has the
characteristic that, as it cools, it goes directly from liquid to
solid without passing through a pasty "plastic" phase. I also just
found out that it has the highest tensile strength of all the tin/
lead solder alloys.
http://www.efunda.com/materials/solders/tin_lead.cfm
The top solder manufacturers used to be Kester and Ersin. Kester
still seems to be around but I can't find a link to Ersin.
http://www.kester.com
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 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: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8 years. No mention of
anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I recall, on anything but
the late model planes as a replacement for the standby vacuum pump on
late models. The earlier models would require approval for removal of
the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric system.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd aircraft to get the
> SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft. I'm certain that by
> now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system on older airplanes
> under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or perhaps the limited
> applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the first to ask,
> then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> 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: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning Kelly,
Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
required is a log book entry that the pump and
associated plumbing was removed.
You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
not listed as required, get rid of it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
--- Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly
> McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
> years. No mention of
> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
> recall, on anything but
> the late model planes as a replacement for the
> standby vacuum pump on
> late models. The earlier models would require
> approval for removal of
> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
> system.
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert
> L. Nuckolls, III"
> > <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >
> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
> aircraft to get the
> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
> I'm certain that by
> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
> on older airplanes
> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
> perhaps the limited
> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
> first to ask,
> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you 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?
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------
> > < What is so wonderful about scientific
> truth...is that >
> > < the authority which determines whether
> there can be >
> > < debate or not does not reside in some
> fraternity of >
> > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority
> rests >
> > < with experiment.
> >
> > < --Lawrence M.
> Krauss >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > http://wiki.matronics.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Comments/Questions: Bob, I have an uninformed question: What is the Wig
Wag flasher system? I have looked at all the details of it from the B & C
site, and the only thing missing is, What does it do? I am looking for a
strobe light system that does not cost megabucks. Is the Wig Wag system
supposed to replace a strobe system? Thanks.
No, "wig-wag" is the street name for Alternating Forward Looking Aircraft
Recognition System. It needs two lights, typically landing lights or
landing/taxi
lights that are operated like railroad crossing "wig-wag" lights.
This can greatly enhance the aircraft's visibility while viewing from
the front in reduced visibility conditions.
I have your Rotax 912 wiring system installed now for 100 hours completely
trouble free. What a delight!
I'm pleased that it's working well for you.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: Z-diagrams moved?? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
>There's a link on this page:
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
>
>This one:
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>
> > Can't find 'em online anymore... link broken?
> >
> > I'm trying to have a discussion about PM starter run-on with another
> > fellow, and it's hard if I can't cite my sources ;-)
> >
> > Thanks for any pointers to the reference docs.
> >
> > -Bill B
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
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: Is this solder okay? |
> I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to
> use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using
> fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches
> and using fastons is not feasible.
> So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable?
=================================================================
Stan:
40/60 NO! But, I think you have the numbers mixed up, it is probably 60/40.
If it is 60/40 that is acceptable but not the best. See if you can find
63/37 it is know as Eutectic Solder.
It does a great job especially at low soldering temperatures. No need to
burn the wire or damage the components.
The solder thickness is OK but again not the best, see if you can find .063"
For electronic work thin solder is better since it requires less heat and
time duration to melt. Also it fits into many a small solder pin connector.
As for the Flux ... Does it say anything such as NA or RMA or RA? Here is
where longevity of the connection is concerned.
The abbreviations stand for: NA = Non-Activated, RMA = Rosin Mildly Activated
and RA = Rosin Activated. The ACTIVATED part is ACID or how corrosive the
flux is. Most Rosin is of the RMA type and works quite well. As with ALL
solder joints make sure you finish by cleaning the joint with isopropyl alcohol,
use a soft toothbrush. Failure to do so will bring about corrosion.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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: Is this solder okay? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Hi Brian;
----- Original Message -----
- snip-
> The ideal solder for electrical connections is actually 63% tin 37%
> lead (63/37). This is also known as eutectic solder. It has the
> characteristic that, as it cools, it goes directly from liquid to
> solid without passing through a pasty "plastic" phase. I also just
> found out that it has the highest tensile strength of all the tin/
> lead solder alloys.
-snip-
> The top solder manufacturers used to be Kester and Ersin. Kester
> still seems to be around but I can't find a link to Ersin.
Ersin is now Multicore (a former Ersin trademark) and are now a part of the
Henkel / Loctite group of companies.
http://www.multicore.com/
Bob McC
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:51 AM 7/28/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/28/2006 9:31:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
> > The threads will contact to the metal part of the nut just fine. I
> > don't know of any problem of conduction through the platenut. I just
> > prefer the nut and washer. YMMV
>
> Threads of a fastener have almost nothing to do with
> conductivity of the joint. 99% happens at the surface
> of a terminal held in contact with the surface opposite
> the nut. To attach a wire to a surface of the airplane,
> you'd be just fine with CERAMIC fasteners as long as
> the goal of bringing the two critical surfaces togehter
> has been achieved.
>
>Bob,
>
>I see your point, but it would be pretty hard to prove where the electrons
>actually go.
Not at all difficult. Let's noodle this out a bit. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/Bolted_Joint_Resistances.gif
the goal is to herd electrons from terminal to the surface of
some other conductor . . . like a fire wall surface or perhaps
a contactor stud . . . what ever.
The resistance in terminal/post joint "B" is where we
concentrate on quality by means of pressure for gas-tightness
and longevity by keeping contaminants out. This is resistance Rb
on the diagram and the majority current flow path.
There's an alternate path that runs through Ra (stud/thread)
+ Re (nut/thread) + Rd (nut/washer) + Rc (washer/terminal) all in
series. I think it's obvious that depending on the alternate conduction
path to become the majority path because of poor preparation or
maintenance of path Rb is exceedingly risky.
>Lets say that the relatively large surface area of the terminal and the
>stainless firewall caused the pressure to be too small to punch through
>the oxide coating of the stainless steel. Then the path would have to be
>from the terminal, through the bolt, to the threads, to the nut (self
>locking by the way), to the washer and finally to the aluminum.
This is a surface preparation issue. If the Rb joint isn't
ready to be bolted up and the proper pressures applied from the get-go,
then the ship has left the dock an we weren't on it. You will note that
when the single-point ground system philosophy as described in
the 'Connection is implemented with hardware equal to that supplied
by B&C then there are no electrical joints (other than the few low-risk
items cited earlier) made to stainless. Engine mounts and fire walls
have specific tasks in the design of airplanes that do not include
being major current paths for electrical systems.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
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: Z-diagrams moved?? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Too fast on the keyboard . . . got 'sent' before I was finished.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an earlier post on the subject of PM starter "run-on"
--------------------------------------------------------------
>I have a problem I need advice on. My electrical system is from an older
>version of Bob's drawings but fits the current Z-11 drawing pretty closely
>with a Z-22 substitution for the way I wire the starter run on relay. I
>need to replace the S704-1 relay which has gone bad. Can I use a standard
>starter contactor in place of the smaller lighter relay? It seems that
>the wiring logic should be the same regardless of whether the smaller or
>larger relay is used.
>Thanks in advance.
Looking over Z-22, I see that I've stubbed my toe. In the
article on spike catcher diodes:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
I alluded to the first issue of an AD against the ACS510
genere' of off-l-r-both-start key switches wherein the
FAA took note of EXTRAORDINARY energy dump from modern
light weight replacement starter solenoid/contactors.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
Seems the coil de-energizing spike was eating up starter
control contacts in the switches (just like it did in
cars! . . . funny thing about that physics stuff . . .
same rules apply everywhere).
The first issue of the AD put a spike catcher diode in
the wrong place . . . but was modified some time later
to correct the error.
Then came along a new characteristic in modern, light-weight
replacement starters. Efforts to reduce starter push
button wear with an add-on starter contactor (a la Z-11
and B&C recommendations), we noted that the back-emf generated
during spin-down of a PM starter would cause a delayed retraction
of the starter's pinon gear when the push button was released.
We STILL didn't want to run full contactor coil current
through the panel control so a heavy-duty (30A) relay
was suggested and described in Z-22. However, making
the relay a "heavy duty" device did NOT alleviate the
need for spike suppression at the contacts. The heavy
duty relay was just as vulnerable to damage from
stored energy as the off-l-r-both-start key switch.
However, while concentrating on the run-on issue, I
overlooked the need for a spike catcher.
I've updated Z-22 and published it in the Page-Per-System
drawings at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Starter/PM_Starter_w_RunOn_Relay.pdf
Here's a good example of how the diode bridge rectifier
assembly can be used to good electrical and mechanical
advantage. I show two of the four didoes used to suppress
the spike out of the starter contactor -AND- the
relay coil. Further, the mechanical characteristics of
this part give us good places to bring pairs of wires
into the same terminal as tie points.
You COULD replace the S704 with a HEAVIER duty still
device like a starter contactor, but it's not necessary.
Try the NEW Z-22 and see what it does for you.
Bob . . .
>>There's a link on this page:
>>
>>http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
>>
>>This one:
>>
>>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Matt-
>>
>> > Can't find 'em online anymore... link broken?
>> >
>> > I'm trying to have a discussion about PM starter run-on with another
>> > fellow, and it's hard if I can't cite my sources ;-)
>> >
>> > Thanks for any pointers to the reference docs.
>> >
>> > -Bill B
>> > ________________________________________________________________________
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>
>>
>>
>>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
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: | OT-accident over lake MI |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Anybody knew these guys? - apparently they were on their way back from OSH
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/north/chi-0607310170jul31,1,7303150
.story?coll=chi-newslocalnorth-hed
Rumen
do not archive
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: OT-accident over lake MI |
<sigh>
http://tinyurl.com/lmpw9
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rd2@evenlink.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> Anybody knew these guys? - apparently they were on their way back from OSH
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/north/chi-0607310170jul31,1,7303150
> .story?coll=chi-newslocalnorth-hed
>
> Rumen
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I've been planning on a garmin SL-30 nav/comm for a future panel upgrade, but
Garmin tech support today just confirmed a fear of mine: they have no plans to
make either the SL-30 or SL-40 compatible with the new tighter spacing.
I suppose one option is to plan on upgrading comm2 to 8.33kHz when needed and leaving
the SL-30 as-is.
Anyone know when the new channelization is going to become mandatory in the US?
I hear it's coming, someday. What are some good options for current production
nav-comms that offer this feature already? I don't need a gps/nav/comm unit
since I plan to run GRT's gps as a stand-alone IFR unit, so the 430, 530, 480
are all too much radio for my needs.
Thanks.
-Bill B.
________________________________________________________________________
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: | avionics ordering tip |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
Here is a small tip for those of you considering ordering a GRT EFIS along
with Garmin avionics from Stark Avionics.
For a small fee, Stark provided the wiring harnesses for my SL-40 comm,
GTX-327 transponder, and PS Engineering intercom with lead lengths I
specified. They did a nice neat job and I was glad I did it. However,
what I didnt realize at the time was that the EFIS and SL-40 can talk to
each other using serial input and output so that multiple airport
frequencies can be automatically loaded into the comm for easy access. To
do this, you will need to specifically request from Stark that the harness
for the comm include the serial input and output pins. Otherwise, if you
want to make use of this feature, you will have to undo Starks nice neat
job and add the wire leads in yourself.
Similarly, as desired, the EFIS can automatically switch the transponder
from standby to on when it determines your flight has begun, but this
requires an additional serial input lead to the transponder, which also
must be specifically requested to be included in the harness.
You can obviously do this all yourself after the fact, but if you are
having Stark do the harnesses anyway, why mess up his nice neat job and
re-do it?
The above probably also applies to other EFIS brands, and possibly other
avionics vendors, but I have no experience with those.
regards,
Erich Weaver
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: | Is this solder okay? |
For larger diameter solder and switch work, you probably won't need
this, but it's helpful if you are working with small diameter solder
(which has limited amounts of flux) or doing any sort of PCB re-work. I
keep a small bottle of Flux at my bench and will add a small amount to
the joint/connection in some cases - mostly when doing de-soldering or
if I need to 're-wet' a joint to remove or add a component. The only
catch is that you absolutely must clean up the joint with a cleaner
afterwards to get rid of the acid left over. However, it does seem to
really help in those cases where the solder doesn't have enough flux or
you need to de-solder/re-solder a joint.
Regards,
Don
________________________________
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 7:17 AM
> I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to
> use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using
> fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches
> and using fastons is not feasible.
> So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable?
=========================
=========================
===============
Stan:
40/60 NO! But, I think you have the numbers mixed up, it is probably
60/40.
If it is 60/40 that is acceptable but not the best. See if you can find
63/37 it is know as Eutectic Solder.
It does a great job especially at low soldering temperatures. No need
to burn the wire or damage the components.
The solder thickness is OK but again not the best, see if you can find
.063" For electronic work thin solder is better since it requires less
heat and time duration to melt. Also it fits into many a small solder
pin connector.
As for the Flux ... Does it say anything such as NA or RMA or RA? Here
is where longevity of the connection is concerned.
The abbreviations stand for: NA = Non-Activated, RMA = Rosin Mildly
Activated and RA = Rosin Activated. The ACTIVATED part is ACID or how
corrosive the flux is. Most Rosin is of the RMA type and works quite
well. As with ALL solder joints make sure you finish by cleaning the
joint with isopropyl alcohol, use a soft toothbrush. Failure to do so
will bring about corrosion.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75
models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was
standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be
questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all
sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment.
AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all
electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000
panels came out.
I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like
Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B,
than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both
easier and cheaper.
Quoting OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
> <oldbob@beechowners.com>
>
> Good Morning Kelly,
>
> Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
> that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
> add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
> have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
> required is a log book entry that the pump and
> associated plumbing was removed.
>
> You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
> listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
> not listed as required, get rid of it!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Stearman N3977A
>
> --- Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly
>> McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
>> years. No mention of
>> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
>> recall, on anything but
>> the late model planes as a replacement for the
>> standby vacuum pump on
>> late models. The earlier models would require
>> approval for removal of
>> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
>> system.
>>
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert
>> L. Nuckolls, III"
>> > <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>> >
>> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
>> aircraft to get the
>> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
>> I'm certain that by
>> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
>> on older airplanes
>> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
>> perhaps the limited
>> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
>> first to ask,
>> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you 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?
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> > < What is so wonderful about scientific
>> truth...is that >
>> > < the authority which determines whether
>> there can be >
>> > < debate or not does not reside in some
>> fraternity of >
>> > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority
>> rests >
>> > < with experiment.
>> >
>> > < --Lawrence M.
>> Krauss >
>> >
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> > http://wiki.matronics.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>>
>> Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and leave the
vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:49 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
<kellym@aviating.com>
Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75
models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was
standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be
questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all
sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment.
AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all
electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000
panels came out.
I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like
Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B,
than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both
easier and cheaper.
Quoting OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
> <oldbob@beechowners.com>
>
> Good Morning Kelly,
>
> Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
> that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
> add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
> have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
> required is a log book entry that the pump and
> associated plumbing was removed.
>
> You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
> listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
> not listed as required, get rid of it!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Stearman N3977A
>
> --- Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly
>> McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
>> years. No mention of
>> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
>> recall, on anything but
>> the late model planes as a replacement for the
>> standby vacuum pump on
>> late models. The earlier models would require
>> approval for removal of
>> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
>> system.
>>
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert
>> L. Nuckolls, III"
>> > <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>> >
>> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
>> aircraft to get the
>> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
>> I'm certain that by
>> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
>> on older airplanes
>> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
>> perhaps the limited
>> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
>> first to ask,
>> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you 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?
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> > < What is so wonderful about scientific
>> truth...is that >
>> > < the authority which determines whether
>> there can be >
>> > < debate or not does not reside in some
>> fraternity of >
>> > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority
>> rests >
>> > < with experiment.
>> >
>> > < --Lawrence M.
>> Krauss >
>> >
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> > http://wiki.matronics.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>>
>> Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
The downside to that is that you've got an all-electric airplane
then, with no vacuum backup, and only the battery to save you in the
event of an alternator failure. That's what I was hoping the backup
alternator would solve. Although maybe a second battery would be
easier to manage.
Dave Morris
At 02:13 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and leave the
>vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly
>McMullen
>Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:49 PM
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
><kellym@aviating.com>
>
>Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75
>models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was
>standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be
>questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all
>sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment.
>AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all
>electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000
>panels came out.
>I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like
>Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B,
>than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both
>easier and cheaper.
>
>Quoting OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
> > <oldbob@beechowners.com>
> >
> > Good Morning Kelly,
> >
> > Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
> > that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
> > add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
> > have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
> > required is a log book entry that the pump and
> > associated plumbing was removed.
> >
> > You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
> > listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
> > not listed as required, get rid of it!
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Stearman N3977A
> >
> > --- Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly
> >> McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
> >>
> >> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
> >> years. No mention of
> >> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
> >> recall, on anything but
> >> the late model planes as a replacement for the
> >> standby vacuum pump on
> >> late models. The earlier models would require
> >> approval for removal of
> >> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
> >> system.
> >>
> >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert
> >> L. Nuckolls, III"
> >> > <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >> >
> >> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
> >> aircraft to get the
> >> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
> >> I'm certain that by
> >> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
> >> on older airplanes
> >> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
> >> perhaps the limited
> >> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
> >> first to ask,
> >> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
> >> >
> >> > Bob . . .
> >> >
> >> > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you 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?
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bob . . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> > < What is so wonderful about scientific
> >> truth...is that >
> >> > < the authority which determines whether
> >> there can be >
> >> > < debate or not does not reside in some
> >> fraternity of >
> >> > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority
> >> rests >
> >> > < with experiment.
> >> >
> >> > < --Lawrence M.
> >> Krauss >
> >> >
> >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >> > http://wiki.matronics.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> browse
> >> Subscriptions page,
> >> FAQ,
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >>
> >>
> >> Admin.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | MPJA speed control |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
I read of the MPJA DC motor speed controller kit being used as a light
dimmer, so I ordered me one. Had it together in an afternoon and
breadboarded up some LEDs to give it a test. I have access to a scope
to check what it's doing, but haven't had time to go by Mark's shop
yet. So far, I find the light flickers visibly, and there is only a
very small change in the brightness as the adjustment knob is turned.
Has anyone else attempted to use this device to control the brightness
of LEDs, and if so, how successful were you?
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: OT-accident over lake MI |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 2 Aug 2006, at 11:31, rd2@evenlink.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> Anybody knew these guys? - apparently they were on their way back
> from OSH
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/north/
> chi-0607310170jul31,1,7303150
> .story?coll=chi-newslocalnorth-hed
The FAA accident list:
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/
has a bit more info:
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/
events01/media/01_848LC.txt
It was an American Legend AL11, which is a Piper Cub "clone".
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
Here's a link to the FAA's site for Type Certificate Data Sheets if anyone wants
to do the research:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGMAKEMODEL.NSF/MAINFRAMENETSCAPE4X?OpenFrameSet
Greg
Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> wrote: --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: Dave N6030X
The downside to that is that you've got an all-electric airplane
then, with no vacuum backup, and only the battery to save you in the
event of an alternator failure. That's what I was hoping the backup
alternator would solve. Although maybe a second battery would be
easier to manage.
Dave Morris
At 02:13 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
>
>Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and leave the
>vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly
>McMullen
>Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:49 PM
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
>
>
>Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75
>models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was
>standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be
>questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all
>sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment.
>AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all
>electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000
>panels came out.
>I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like
>Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B,
>than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both
>easier and cheaper.
>
>Quoting OldBob Siegfried :
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
> >
> >
> > Good Morning Kelly,
> >
> > Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
> > that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
> > add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
> > have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
> > required is a log book entry that the pump and
> > associated plumbing was removed.
> >
> > You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
> > listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
> > not listed as required, get rid of it!
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Stearman N3977A
> >
> > --- Kelly McMullen wrote:
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly
> >> McMullen
> >>
> >> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
> >> years. No mention of
> >> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
> >> recall, on anything but
> >> the late model planes as a replacement for the
> >> standby vacuum pump on
> >> late models. The earlier models would require
> >> approval for removal of
> >> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
> >> system.
> >>
> >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert
> >> L. Nuckolls, III"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
> >> aircraft to get the
> >> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
> >> I'm certain that by
> >> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
> >> on older airplanes
> >> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
> >> perhaps the limited
> >> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
> >> first to ask,
> >> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
> >> >
> >> > Bob . . .
> >> >
> >> > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave
> >> N6030X
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 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
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bob . . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> > < What is so wonderful about scientific
> >> truth...is that >
> >> > < the authority which determines whether
> >> there can be >
> >> > < debate or not does not reside in some
> >> fraternity of >
> >> > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority
> >> rests >
> >> > < with experiment.
> >> >
> >> > < --Lawrence M.
> >> Krauss >
> >> >
> >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >> > http://wiki.matronics.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> browse
> >> Subscriptions page,
> >> FAQ,
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >>
> >>
> >> Admin.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------
See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out.
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | avionics ordering tip |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
I have the understanding that the SL30 is remote tuneable but not the Sl40.
Can you confirm that you are using the GRT Efis to tune the SL40.
Thanks
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:53 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
Here is a small tip for those of you considering ordering a GRT EFIS along
with Garmin avionics from Stark Avionics.
For a small fee, Stark provided the wiring harnesses for my SL-40 comm,
GTX-327 transponder, and PS Engineering intercom with lead lengths I
specified. They did a nice neat job and I was glad I did it. However, what
I didnt realize at the time was that the EFIS and SL-40 can talk to each
other using serial input and output so that multiple airport frequencies can
be automatically loaded into the comm for easy access. To do this, you will
need to specifically request from Stark that the harness for the comm
include the serial input and output pins. Otherwise, if you want to make
use of this feature, you will have to undo Starks nice neat job and add the
wire leads in yourself.
Similarly, as desired, the EFIS can automatically switch the transponder
from standby to on when it determines your flight has begun, but this
requires an additional serial input lead to the transponder, which also must
be specifically requested to be included in the harness.
You can obviously do this all yourself after the fact, but if you are having
Stark do the harnesses anyway, why mess up his nice neat job and re-do it?
The above probably also applies to other EFIS brands, and possibly other
avionics vendors, but I have no experience with those.
regards,
Erich Weaver
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Is this solder okay? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Don Honabach wrote:
> For larger diameter solder and switch work, you probably wont need
> this, but its helpful if you are working with small diameter
> solder (which has limited amounts of flux) or doing any sort of PCB
> re-work. I keep a small bottle of Flux at my bench and will add a
> small amount to the joint/connection in some cases mostly when
> doing de-soldering or if I need to re-wet a joint to remove or
> add a component. The only catch is that you absolutely must clean
> up the joint with a cleaner afterwards to get rid of the acid left
> over. However, it does seem to really help in those cases where the
> solder doesnt have enough flux or you need to de-solder/re-solder
> a joint.
Rosin flux is all you should ever use on electrical connections. It
is not acid. While not particularly pretty, it will do no damage to
your circuitry if you leave it on there.
If you are using acid flux, stop.
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 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> The downside to that is that you've got an all-electric airplane
> then, with no vacuum backup, and only the battery to save you in
> the event of an alternator failure. That's what I was hoping the
> backup alternator would solve. Although maybe a second battery
> would be easier to manage.
The problem with vacuum power is that, if you lose your vacuum
source, all your vacuum-driven devices go away. Providing backup
power for your vacuum devices is a challenge. Also, your vacuum
system has several single-points of failure, among them:
1. vacuum pump,
2. vacuum lines,
3. vacuum regulator.
If any of those fail you lose your vacuum system.
If you have a properly designed electrical system you will have no
single point of failure for electrical power. If the alternator fails
your battery will continue to power your instruments. If you are
worried about that, install a dynamo or alternator on the vacuum pump
pad and now you have three power sources for your gyro instruments,
i.e. alternator, backup alternator, and then battery if both
alternators fail. And not only will that power your gyros but it will
provide backup power for other electrical devices, like navigational
instruments and radios.
And as for wiring, if your vacuum hose to one gyro fails you will
lose the vacuum to the other gyro(s). If the wire fails to one gyro,
the others run just fine.
We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system
that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses
electrically-powered 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 26
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and
> leave the
> vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
We can talk about the details but let's look at the spirit of the
thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power sources for the
gyros so that no single failure will cause all the gyros to stop
working at once.
Since it is a type certified airplane, you are going to want FAA buy-
in. They are going to want to see the following:
1. no single point of failure;
2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, second alternator
better);
3. justification for a claim that a failure to one gyro will not
affect the others.
Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in your TC aircraft.
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 27
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
I was thinking more of staying in compliance with the Type Certificate...
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:35 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and
> leave the
> vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
We can talk about the details but let's look at the spirit of the
thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power sources for the
gyros so that no single failure will cause all the gyros to stop
working at once.
Since it is a type certified airplane, you are going to want FAA buy-
in. They are going to want to see the following:
1. no single point of failure;
2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, second alternator
better);
3. justification for a claim that a failure to one gyro will not
affect the others.
Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in your TC aircraft.
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 28
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Evening Bill, Brian and All,
I note that Brian has stated that the FAA would like
us to have redundancy of power for our instruments
used for inflight reference.
It is true that they are requiring redundancy for
newly certificated flying machines and for anyone who
wants to replace a turn coordinator or turn and bank
with an attitude gyro, but the basic FARs do NOT
require that we have any redundancy at all for our
older certificated flying machines.
It is up to us to decide just how much risk we wish to
take.
We can still fly with only one engine, one alternator,
one radio, one pilot and one power source for our
instruments!
The choice of redundant systems is up to us.
I think that is the way it should be and I do not feel
that the FAA's recent foray into mandating redundancy
has improved safety at all.
Once they designate what we must have for redundancy
of flight instruments, how much longer will it be
before they try to tell us under what conditions we
can fly single pilot? How long will it take them to
require an autopilot? When will they decide we need
two engines at night or over water?
All of those ideas have merit, but statistics do not
support the need.
Back to the FAA ideas of redundancy.
By the time they decide something meets their
interpretation of redundancy, there are many forms of
redundancy available that are far superior to the
devices finally approved by the FEDs. The beauty of
the way it was is that we had almost as much
flexibility to evaluate risk for our certificated
airplanes as do those folks who build and fly OBAM
aircraft.
Lets not add difficulties beyond those that the FAA
has already foisted upon us.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
--- Bill Denton <bdenton@bdenton.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill
> Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> I was thinking more of staying in compliance with
> the Type Certificate...
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On
> Behalf Of Brian
> Lloyd
> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:35 PM
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill
> Denton"
> > <bdenton@bdenton.com>
> >
> > Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI
> and DG, and
> > leave the
> > vacuum system in place, but not connected to
> anything?
>
> We can talk about the details but let's look at the
> spirit of the
> thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power
> sources for the
> gyros so that no single failure will cause all the
> gyros to stop
> working at once.
>
> Since it is a type certified airplane, you are going
> to want FAA buy-
> in. They are going to want to see the following:
>
> 1. no single point of failure;
> 2. a second source of power (battery probably OK,
> second alternator
> better);
> 3. justification for a claim that a failure to one
> gyro will not
> affect the others.
>
> Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in
> your TC aircraft.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 29
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | RE: avionics ordering tip |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
Bevan:
I have not actually used the frequency-loading feature on the SL-40 myself
yet as I am not yet flying, but I have wired it for this purpose and have
had conversations with the tech guys at both GRT and Stark Avionics on
this, so Im confident its true. The EFIS manual also refers to it, but
admittedly does a poor job of distinguishing between the SL40 and SL-30
capabilities in the text, and may be missing the key pin number call-outs
in their tables. Obviously the EFIS / SL30 combo goes beyond this by
including NAV interactions, but I decided I could do without that.
You should be able to easily confirm what Im saying on your own if it is
influencing a purchase decision
regards
Erich Weaver
Message 30
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Thanks to all of you who have commented, some
also privately. I'm just a rebel who spends most of his time outside the box.
Dave Morris
At 04:35 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
>On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
>><bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and
>>leave the
>>vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
>
>We can talk about the details but let's look at the spirit of the
>thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power sources for the
>gyros so that no single failure will cause all the gyros to stop
>working at once.
>
>Since it is a type certified airplane, you are
>going to want FAA buy- in. They are going to want to see the following:
>
>1. no single point of failure;
>2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, second alternator
>better);
>3. justification for a claim that a failure to one gyro will not
>affect the others.
>
>Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in your TC aircraft.
>
>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 31
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> I was thinking more of staying in compliance with the Type
> Certificate...
Old Bob made a good point. Many of these aircraft were certified
without gyro instruments and the regs covering IFR instrumentation
are pretty loose. You should be able to drop in an electric AI.
But the points I made were correct. The FAA (and you if you aren't
stupid) want to see that there is no way that all your gyros can fail
at the same time. They want to not have to bother with yet more
"wrecked airplane, dead pilot, dead passengers, new lawsuit" paperwork.
So rather than argue the number of angels needed to keep your vacuum
pump running, talk to the FSDO and get started on a 337 for a well-
designed electrical source for your all-electric gyros. There are
still some not-stupids at the FAA who will help you do what you want.
So just remember, the goal is a system that is more reliable and will
be less likely to fail when you need it most. And if it does fail, it
fails softly, i.e. without the wholesale loss of big chunks of your
gyro panel.
So don't argue, think. This is not rocket science. This is common
sense. If you can really show the FAA guys (the smart ones - work on
finding the smart ones) that you have a better way, they will
probably go along with you and grant their blessings.
And a Mooney that has the old vacuum-powered wing leveler will
probably have to keep that vacuum-powered wing leveler as it was
specifically part of the TC. But that doesn't preclude making things
better for everything else.
Heck, my 1960 Comanche has an e-bus with a second battery. There were
no hassles getting that approved. Work on it.
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 32
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 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
You ASSUME two totally separate electrical systems available to each
gyro, which is a physical impossiblity, and that the battery will be
available if that fails. Each master switch you have is a single point
of failure, as well as the relay it operates. Any place one system
interconnects with the other is also a single point of failure that
can take out both systems. Smoke from the electrical system will have
you killing all electrics. Now where are you??? Turn system back on
and risk cockpit fire? I don't think so. Truly independent...AI on one
system, DG and TC on the other? You still lose pitch if that side fails.
Vacuum regulators fail about 0.5 times in the life of an airframe.
About the most reliable mechanical device on the airframe. Hoses, if
they are replaced with the pump never fail. Pumps are your only real
point of failure. If you equip the aircraft with one vacuum and one
electric AI you will have far better redundancy and reliability than
all electric.
Quoting Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>:
> We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system
> that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses
> electrically-powered gyros.
>
>
Message 33
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 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Again allow me to point out that the Sporty's and the Mid-Continent "backup" attitude
indicators have an internal battery backup; they can operate without any
ship's power whatsoever.
And while they were originally designed for backup purposes, couldn't they also
be used in place of the primary attitude indicators in cases where an electric
unit is permitted?
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:58 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
You ASSUME two totally separate electrical systems available to each
gyro, which is a physical impossiblity, and that the battery will be
available if that fails. Each master switch you have is a single point
of failure, as well as the relay it operates. Any place one system
interconnects with the other is also a single point of failure that
can take out both systems. Smoke from the electrical system will have
you killing all electrics. Now where are you??? Turn system back on
and risk cockpit fire? I don't think so. Truly independent...AI on one
system, DG and TC on the other? You still lose pitch if that side fails.
Vacuum regulators fail about 0.5 times in the life of an airframe.
About the most reliable mechanical device on the airframe. Hoses, if
they are replaced with the pump never fail. Pumps are your only real
point of failure. If you equip the aircraft with one vacuum and one
electric AI you will have far better redundancy and reliability than
all electric.
Quoting Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>:
> We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system
> that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses
> electrically-powered gyros.
>
>
Message 34
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: RE: avionics ordering tip |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
>
>
> Bevan:
>
> I have not actually used the frequency-loading feature on the SL-40
> myself
> yet as I am not yet flying, but I have wired it for this purpose
> and have
> had conversations with the tech guys at both GRT and Stark Avionics on
> this, so Im confident its true. The EFIS manual also refers to it,
> but
> admittedly does a poor job of distinguishing between the SL40 and
> SL-30
> capabilities in the text, and may be missing the key pin number
> call-outs
> in their tables. Obviously the EFIS / SL30 combo goes beyond this by
> including NAV interactions, but I decided I could do without that.
The comm section of the SL-30 and SL-40 are identical. If you open up
an SL-40 you will find it half empty -- the half that would otherwise
hold the nav section of the SL-30 or the GPS section of the SL-60.
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 35
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 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> You ASSUME two totally separate electrical systems available to
> each gyro, which is a physical impossiblity, and that the battery
> will be available if that fails. Each master switch you have is a
> single point of failure, as well as the relay it operates. Any
> place one system interconnects with the other is also a single
> point of failure that can take out both systems. Smoke from the
> electrical system will have you killing all electrics. Now where
> are you??? Turn system back on and risk cockpit fire? I don't think
> so. Truly independent...AI on one system, DG and TC on the other?
> You still lose pitch if that side fails.
> Vacuum regulators fail about 0.5 times in the life of an airframe.
> About the most reliable mechanical device on the airframe. Hoses,
> if they are replaced with the pump never fail. Pumps are your only
> real point of failure. If you equip the aircraft with one vacuum
> and one electric AI you will have far better redundancy and
> reliability than all electric.
> Quoting Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>:
>
>> We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system
>> that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses
>> electrically-powered gyros.
I see we have reached an impasse. Clearly you have not worked with
electrical systems nor have you read Bob's book.
But I will address your point about switches. Yes if the battery
master switch fails and/or the battery contactor fails, you lose the
main bus. That is why there is a second path from the battery to your
e-bus which drives your gyros. You can feed the e-bus from either the
main bus or the battery directly. You would now need a chain of
failures to cause your gyros to go away.
The e-bus is simplicity itself. In my Comanche it started out as an
avionics bus but became the e-bus by virtue of adding a second
battery, a separate charging path from primary battery to backup
battery, a separate path from backup battery to e-bus, and separate
circuits from e-bus to each load, each with its own current limiter.
It even has a backup switch to connect to the e-bus to the main bus
should the main switch fail. (I didn't want to add that but the FAA
wanted it and it was cheaper and faster to add it than to argue.
What's the cost of one switch and two wires.) A failure of a single
circuit causes that current limiter to open and protect the wiring
for that circuit without taking out everything else. The only common
point is the e-bus itself and that was just a piece of bus bar. I
trust a piece of bus bar a lot more than I trust a vacuum pump.
As a suggestion, perhaps you ought to look at the current crop of
airlines plying our skies. I think that, no matter how hard you look,
you won't find a single vacuum pump or air-driven gyro in the lot.
That might suggest something to you.
But you are sold on having a vacuum pump. More power to you. I have
owned many, many airplanes and my experience is that the vacuum pump
and its related components were less reliable than electrical
systems. That is my experience. When I finish restoring my Nanchang
CJ6A there will be no air-powered gyros in it. When I build my F1
Rocket there will be no vacuum pumps and no air-powered gyros. I am
willing to bet my life on an all-electric panel in hard IFR. You
should do what makes you most comfortable.
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 36
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 |
|
I am using circuit breakers in my electrical system.
I had planned to use copper bars to provide power to the "line" side of the
CBs.
However, it seems that would make maintenance more difficult if I needed to
remove only one CB.
SO, what do you think about using jumper wires from CB to CB to provide power
to the CBs? Maybe use #12 AWG to carry the load.
Has anyone done that? Any issues?
Stan Sutterfield
Message 37
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii@rvproject.gen.nz>
Hi,
Although the inners may be identical (I don't know), I'm fairly sure there
were some protocol differences between the SL-30 and SL-40. The SL-40 is
now a specific option on the GRT EFIS and AFAIK it provides functional
control the same as SL-30.
I think the SL-30/SL-40 differences information was via the GRT yahoo group
Carl
--
ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - finishing? - New Zealand
http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
> Lloyd
> Sent: Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:24 a.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: avionics ordering tip
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
> >
> >
> > Bevan:
> >
> > I have not actually used the frequency-loading feature on the SL-40
> > myself
> > yet as I am not yet flying, but I have wired it for this purpose
> > and have
> > had conversations with the tech guys at both GRT and Stark Avionics on
> > this, so Im confident its true. The EFIS manual also refers to it,
> > but
> > admittedly does a poor job of distinguishing between the SL40 and
> > SL-30
> > capabilities in the text, and may be missing the key pin number
> > call-outs
> > in their tables. Obviously the EFIS / SL30 combo goes beyond this by
> > including NAV interactions, but I decided I could do without that.
>
> The comm section of the SL-30 and SL-40 are identical. If you open up
> an SL-40 you will find it half empty -- the half that would otherwise
> hold the nav section of the SL-30 or the GPS section of the SL-60.
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
--
Message 38
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: RE: GRT/ SL-40 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 8:13 PM, Carl Morgan wrote:
> Although the inners may be identical (I don't know), I'm fairly
> sure there
> were some protocol differences between the SL-30 and SL-40.
Different firmware revs. The early SL-30 was not remotely channelable
either. All it could get was a set of 10 most likely frequencies from
the GX-60. You still had to control the SL-30 from its own front panel.
> The SL-40 is
> now a specific option on the GRT EFIS and AFAIK it provides functional
> control the same as SL-30.
>
> I think the SL-30/SL-40 differences information was via the GRT
> yahoo group
The comm section of the two radios are identical as far as I have
been able to discern. The functional differences seem to be a
function of the firmware loaded into the microprocessor that controls
the radio. Now Garmin may be limiting the functionality of the
firmware in the SL-40 but that doesn't mean it isn't capable. (Well,
yeah it does because that is what you get from Garmin and I don't
know anyone who has hacked the firmware ... yet.)
I am really hoping that, when I get to doing the panel in the CJ6A, I
will be able to fully control the function of the SL30 remotely from
a display in the back seat. OTOH, by then it will probably be a
different product that makes the most sense. I sure as heck will not
be buying any avionics until I am down to the very final assembly of
the panel. The functionality of the boxes just changes too much with
time to go out and buy anything before you really need it.
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 39
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: CB Power Source |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 8/2/06 8:09:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Speedy11@aol.com
writes:
> I am using circuit breakers in my electrical system.
> I had planned to use copper bars to provide power to the "line" side of
the
> CBs.
> However, it seems that would make maintenance more difficult if I needed
to
> remove only one CB.
> SO, what do you think about using jumper wires from CB to CB to provide
> power
> to the CBs? Maybe use #12 AWG to carry the load.
> Has anyone done that? Any issues?
> Stan Sutterfield
============================
Stan:
There is nothing wrong with that, the procedure works very well.
A little trick is to use one continuous length of wire, no cuts, no splices.
Leave enough bare wire between each CB to form a nice loop and so that you
can fold it back on itself and insert it into a ring lug. Low resistance, solid
mechanical connection, looks good and as you said, easy to maintain.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
Message 40
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: CB Power Source |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:03 PM 8/2/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>I am using circuit breakers in my electrical system.
>I had planned to use copper bars to provide power to the "line" side of
>the CBs.
Suggest brass strip available from hobby shops. MUCH easier
to work with than copper.
>However, it seems that would make maintenance more difficult if I needed
>to remove only one CB.
>SO, what do you think about using jumper wires from CB to CB to provide
>power to the CBs? Maybe use #12 AWG to carry the load.
>Has anyone done that?
Yup . . .
> Any issues?
Yup . . . the definition of a "bus" is a conductor with multiple
taps for power distribution that are totally independent of each
other. Loss of one tap has no effect on the remainder of the system.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_2.jpg
Here's an example of a non-bussed assembly taken from an
old Piper. Note the 3-piece "bus bar" . . . if a screw
loosens at one of these joints, you loose not only the
breaker fed with the loose screw but every thing downstream
as well.
A "real" bus is a contiguous conductor with holes for each
tap that feeds and affects one and only one breaker.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 41
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: | Alternator failure quits engine |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Do not arcive
Here is a story from Europa Newsgroup figured may be of interest.
Ron Parigoris
Full Headers: Display Headers
Attachments: Part 1 noname (TEXT/PLAIN quoted-printable 4648 bytes) Hide
Part 2 noname (TEXT/HTML quoted-printable 5759 bytes) View
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our recently rebuilt Europa G-BWCV is again in pieces after we put only 30
more
flying hrs on this engine to add to the 50hrs it had done in the hands of
the
previous owner.
We had just received the new full permit to fly when recently, heading for
Lundy
Island just South of Bristol Docks , the cockpit filled with smoke as if a
smoke
bomb had gone off and the engine stopped! I could not discern whether the
smoke
was electrical in origin but assumed as the engine had stopped it had to
be.
The cause and subsequent sequence of events has now been established.
Alternator bearing seizure initiated dual rubber v-belt slip at the
crankshaft
pulley.
In 2-3 seconds 50 cruise hp turned both rubber belts into smoke and
vulcanised
them instead of driving the now freewheeling prop (no flywheel effect to
snap
belts).
The alternator was switched off immediately but to no benefit since its
load was
not the issue.
So instead of the crankshaft pulley driving the alternator, the alternator
now
seized was now driving the engine to a stop! A relatively minor accessory
failure
had initiated a cascade of events equivalent or even worse than a major
engine
failure.
Ofcourse this should not happen should it?
Little did I know I had become an involuntary test pilot!!!!!!!with an
observer!!!!!
The idea of a re-start attempt was not surprisingly quickly rejected.
However, as
I now know it would obviously have been a futile exercise, the engine
stopped
from 50hp running so the starter did not have a chance.
Two other aspects of this incident made for an extremely high workload.
1. I had to switch off all electrics to prevent any further risk of smoke
(if
only to be able to see out for a forced landing) or worse still fire. This
meant
I lost the electric trim.
This may appear a small thing but believe me, this meant the constant use
of one
hand flying the stick without feel and as a consequence one eye glued to
the ASI.
A workload I did not need at this time. Mechanical trim would have helped
enormously.
Try your practice forced landings in cruise trim to see what I mean. "It
could be
you."
2. The other aspect which is a little more difficult to practice was the
free
wheeling prop. All practice forced landings to date had been with the
engine at
idle as is usual. In this condition increasing speed, by diving, increases
engine
rpm so the sprag clutch is effectively connecting engine and propeller
like any
other engine.
When the engine stopped, I was quickly aware of an abnormally high rate of
descent. The prop ran away like a wind generator in hurricane, the feel of
the
stick was abnormal due to the out of trim load and I think also the
braking
effect on the airflow over the tail.of the prop now in drag parachute
mode.
The location was far from ideal for a forced landing and with the high
rate of
descent meaning short time for descent we could easily have come off far
worse
especially since the area was well populated with power lines of different
sizes
forcing a late rejection of the primary field selection.
Having taken the diagonal in anticipation of the limited field size We hit
the
far hedge in a 290 meter 30+ Celcius almost max gross with wind light and
variable as the sea breeze was backing up the Severn valley. The near
hedge
incidentally was a 6 foot steep bank from a wide drainage canal. This,
coupled
with the unusual deck angle in the glide which only got worse of course
when I
put the coupled gear and flap down on the Mono, requiring an unusually
long
duration flare as if landing up hill, put our aiming point considerably
before
the actual touch down point so we were going to hit the hedge. The last
trick I
had up my sleeve from my cross country gliding days was to drop the gear
in order
to minimise the ground roll. This in retrospect, although it did no such
thing,
probably stopped us flipping upside down. I never considered applying the
brake
but the wheel just keeps turning judging by our grass marks.Which
fortunately I
was able to pace out having vacated the aircraft.
I am giving a talk to Gloucester strut about the Europa rebuild and now
have a
new chapter.
It is in the Aeros flying club building next Tuesday at 07.30 pm and would
welcome anyone especially Subaru owners to come along.
I still like the Subaru engine and would be happy to fly it again once
this
single point failure has been addressed. If the Europa flies again it will
be
called hedgehog!
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! --
|