---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 08/05/06: 27 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:20 AM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Dave) 2. 04:29 AM - Re: Local Grounding Question (Dave) 3. 05:42 AM - Re: Local Grounding Question (Ken) 4. 06:26 AM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (James H Nelson) 5. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: use of toggle switch breakers (Brian Lloyd) 6. 06:29 AM - Re: Alternator seizure engine failure (Brian Lloyd) 7. 06:36 AM - Re: Alternator seizure engine failure (Charlie Kuss) 8. 06:36 AM - Re: Alternator seizure engine failure (Brian Lloyd) 9. 07:14 AM - Re: Alternator seizure engine failure (Dave N6030X) 10. 09:03 AM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Peter Pengilly) 11. 09:05 AM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Peter Pengilly) 12. 09:27 AM - Re: Alternator seizure engine failure (Paul Messinger) 13. 11:32 AM - Re: Alternator seizure engine failure (Brian Lloyd) 14. 11:53 AM - Re: Alternator seizure engine failure () 15. 12:36 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Steve Thomas) 16. 12:53 PM - Re: Alternator seizure engine failure (Bob McCallum) 17. 01:13 PM - Re: Re: Alternator seizure engine failure () 18. 01:46 PM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Eric M. Jones) 19. 02:53 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Peter Pengilly) 20. 03:49 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Mike) 21. 03:49 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Mike) 22. 04:01 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Mike) 23. 04:36 PM - Re: Re: Re: Alternator seizure engine failure (Paul Messinger) 24. 06:31 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Dave N6030X) 25. 07:06 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Tim Lewis) 26. 07:15 PM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Eric M. Jones) 27. 08:43 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? (Bret Smith) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:20:33 AM PST US From: Dave Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Remember to check on availability of any system you plan to install. I've waited over 4 months for my GRT units, and there's at least one more to go. Also look closely at how much information each company provides on interfacing their products with the other avionics you plan to install. In GRT's defense, they provide the cases for the AHRS and EFISes, the real magnetometer, and harness, so you can proceed with installation. If you are also installing a 430, GTX330, and DigiflightII VSGS, the interfacing schematic is spot on. OTOH, the harness is very rudimentary, tech support not responsive, and delivery date impossible to pin down. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:29:26 AM PST US From: Dave Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Local Grounding Question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Heated clothing? A motorcyclist, eh? I have considered this issue and if I go for it will install the Widder thermostat on the panel. Plugging in for heat will then be a simple connection with no dangling devices. The Widder electronic controller (product N2) http://www.widder.com/html/Product/Hookups/index.html gives you very fine-tuned control of the vest. This is critical to warming up nicely versus freezing-roasting. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:38 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Local Grounding Question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken FWIW I have discarded similar looking ones sold by marina's because the plugs fell out too easily. They were NOT marinco and they had no locking provision. The cheap all metal units that I got from Digi-key seem to retain the plugs reasonably well but they do ground to the panel of course. Ken chaztuna@adelphia.net wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >Harry, > Craig Payne from this list told me about these. They are made by Marinco. Model # 12VPK. I got mine at my local Boat Owners Warehouse. Here is a web link. > >http://www.marinco.com/scpt/ProdPage.php?loadItem=12VPK_Marinco%20Shore%20Power > >They are great. They lock positively. Twist 30 degrees in either direction to release the lock mechanism. They are waterproof. The male end contains a fuse which you can use to protect the cable. I've found that even the male cigarette connector from my Noika cell phone is retained quite well. >Charlie > >---- Harry Manvel wrote: > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harry Manvel" >> >>Charlie, >> >>I am interested in those "locking" recepticles. I have some which I have >>velcroed together but that is kindof clunky. Where do you get those? >> >> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:38 AM PST US From: James H Nelson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson Dave, Its worth the wait. I have a dual panel from GRT and my past history with them is priceless. They have been very resopnsive to everey queston. Remember, they are a very small company and thus may seem unresponsive. Not the case. Call them if you want. Sandy is very good at answering questions and Greg and Todd are usually right there. Ive used their products for 9 years and find them IMHO one of the best. I just don't know who the other one is. :-))) Jim Nelson ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:38 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: use of toggle switch breakers --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 4, 2006, at 8:16 PM, FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com > > In a message dated 8/4/06 12:31:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > bdenton@bdenton.com writes: > >> RE: "...also add placards for the switches showing CB Amperage." >> >> The P&B W31 Toggle Switch/Breakers have the amp rating engraved >> on the end >> of the toggle... >> > ========================= > True, there is an engraving but it is not very visible ... Not to > these old > eyes and very difficult to see at night. Why would it be important to read the trip value of a breaker in flight? You would want to be able to read it to be sure you installed the correct breaker on the correct circuit but after that, what does it matter? Now labeling the circuit is another matter. 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 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:29:03 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 4, 2006, at 11:40 PM, OldBob Siegfried wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried > > > Good Evening Dave, > > I do not remember for sure, but I think B&C uses a > shear coupling on their alternator that is designed to > be driven off of an accessory pad on the Lycoming > which otherwise generally drives a vacuum pump. > > Anyone know for sure? Yes, they do. In fact, I have just heard of my first B&C alternator failure because the shear coupling failed. (It happened on a friend's CJ6A.) Seems B&C is now using a slightly stronger shear coupling and is providing a retrofit for older units. 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 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:36:13 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure Paul, I agree that use of known, high quality parts is the smart thing to do. I have some knowledge of the Subaru engine (professional auto mechanic) but don't claim to be a Subaru expert. Have you considered installation of an "outboard" support bearing (with related shaft) to aid in support of the water pump? If the water pump pulley was originally fitted with a cooling fan (probably not) a stub axle could be attached to this surface to support an outboard bearing. Failing that, a custom pulley could be machined to facilitate an outboard support bearing. Charlie Kuss >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" > >I agree that a LYC belt drive is a different issue and not likely to >be a problem with a frozen bearing. > >My point is the specific subject auto engine conversion is very >different. Lots of trades to consider and no perfect solution. > >But as you pointed out some time ago bearing failure in a locked >failure mode can happen however rare it might be. > >I might point out the Subaru engine has demonstrated the ability to >run for as long as 30 min with No coolant so if the engine can be >kept running its possible to land safely. The key is using the prop >inertia of a non clutch drive and / or a reasonable sized flywheel >to force the belt to start slipping. In this case the manufacturer >chose to assume the bearing lock up was less likely than a belt >failure and or the pump leaking from belt side load. > >Since the original design the use of dual belts has been >questionable in auto engine conversions including the belt reduction >designs. Stratus for example has had several dual belt failures >where one belt failed and then took out the other belt and went to a >single wider belt. Eggenfelner recently had a multi belt reduction >unit fail all the belts from a single FOD starting with a single >belt that progressed to the rest of the belts and dropped the design. > >Perhaps a single belt under slightly more tension is a better way to >go and risk water pump leakage on this specific application. I have >considered this and am considering a single belt as its simple to do >and pump shaft leakage is a slow failure and thus simple to detect >the loss of coolant before its a serious risk to the engine. In any >event its better than a locked engine and becoming a glider where I >live. Lets see; 95% of the time its a stump farm, high trees, rough >mountain sides, or cold seas for landing sites. > >The trades in an auto engine conversion are many. Here the Sprague >clutch allowed a saving of 20 pounds of flywheel to reduce the >torsional loads from a 4 cyl engine. Much the same as the flywheel >on Lyc vs no flywheel on the Cont where the torsionals are different >due to basic engine design. Or the Cont trade of accessory gear >drive for the alternator vs the Lyc belt drive. Different solutions >from different designers. > >No criticism of your comments just a clarification of the exact >configuration of the failure and its effects. I would not expect >that 99% of this list members know the specific design of the subject system. > >Just as we would not consider using a used crank with out magniflux >etc, we should not use a repaired alternator without new HI quality bearings. > >Paul snipped ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:36:13 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 4, 2006, at 11:54 PM, Paul Messinger wrote: > No criticism of your comments just a clarification of the exact > configuration of the failure and its effects. I would not expect > that 99% of this list members know the specific design of the > subject system. No problem and no criticism perceived on this end. I know a fair bit about a fair bit and do have a tendency to "think out loud" but I do try to avoid what my ex-wife used to call "male answer syndrome" (MAS), i.e. the need to come up with an answer even if you haven't got one. I find that the phrase, "I don't know but I will find out," works pretty well, especially with children. (BTW, after meeting some women with MAS I changed the acronym to be "must-answer syndrome.") > > Just as we would not consider using a used crank with out magniflux > etc, we should not use a repaired alternator without new HI quality > bearings. Makes sense to me. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:43 AM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X LOL!!! That's great Brian! It just hit me! There are no women on aviation internet forums!!! We're here to answer each other's questions, even if we don't have the answer!!! (slapping head) Wow. Dave At 08:34 AM 8/5/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd >but I do >try to avoid what my ex-wife used to call "male answer >syndrome" (MAS), i.e. the need to come up with an answer even if you >haven't got one. ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:03:33 AM PST US From: "Peter Pengilly" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? BMA is computer people trying to design airplane stuff, GRT is big airplane people designing little airplane stuff. I work in military avionics development and can tell the difference straight away. IMHO GRT have identified the issues that make these systems work well and designed their system accordingly. BMA looks pretty. The GRT have very good integration with Trutrak autopilots and with radios such as SL-30 and GNS-430. Autopilot design is an art in itself, I think GRT have taken a better approach. My view is that GRT is just better designed for the task. I'm sure BMA does the job most of the time, but I think a GRT unit will be better in almost all cases. Yours, Peter RV-6A Arlington, TX -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: 05 August 2006 00:14 Does anyone have recommendations on GRT vs BMA-Lite? I am looking for a reliable IFR unit. I will go with Dual AHRS, separate avionics buss/battery, etc. The real decision is which vendor - prices turn out to be pretty similar. Thanks Dan ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:05:15 AM PST US From: "Peter Pengilly" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? PS Have you considered Advanced Flight Systems? They also seem to have a very well engineered product. http://www.advanced-control-systems.com/ Pete -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: 05 August 2006 00:14 Does anyone have recommendations on GRT vs BMA-Lite? I am looking for a reliable IFR unit. I will go with Dual AHRS, separate avionics buss/battery, etc. The real decision is which vendor - prices turn out to be pretty similar. Thanks Dan ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:21 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure The pulley is deep dished and the belt groove is actually slightly inside the span of the shaft bearings. The problem with outer third bearings is alignment. This is a major problem with reduction units that have a hard coupling to the crank and in theory an outer bearing helps the cog belt side load. In fact it usually promotes failure as the TIR of the outer support must be less than 0.0005" over all conditions or it will add to the crank bearing load. Frankly I believe there is no real concern with the water pump bearing failure but clearly some are worried. I have torn down over a dozen subaru engines and none had pump shaft wear that I could see. Brand new pumps are available and not expensive so its no big deal to start with new parts. I was only relating the stated reason (by the mfgr) for the dual belts as well as the idea of redundancy. The reason I chose to put the pulley set with dual belts is the changed pully ratios better suited to the higher average rpm of the auto conversion. The original concept of dual belts for redundancy has been demonstrated to be false as one belt failure usually takes out the other. Not unlike the light twin engined aircraft where one engine failure overstresses (in this case) the pilot and the aircraft crashes.. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Charlie Kuss To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 6:31 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure Paul, I agree that use of known, high quality parts is the smart thing to do. I have some knowledge of the Subaru engine (professional auto mechanic) but don't claim to be a Subaru expert. Have you considered installation of an "outboard" support bearing (with related shaft) to aid in support of the water pump? If the water pump pulley was originally fitted with a cooling fan (probably not) a stub axle could be attached to this surface to support an outboard bearing. Failing that, a custom pulley could be machined to facilitate an outboard support bearing. Charlie Kuss --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" I agree that a LYC belt drive is a different issue and not likely to be a problem with a frozen bearing. My point is the specific subject auto engine conversion is very different. Lots of trades to consider and no perfect solution. But as you pointed out some time ago bearing failure in a locked failure mode can happen however rare it might be. I might point out the Subaru engine has demonstrated the ability to run for as long as 30 min with No coolant so if the engine can be kept running its possible to land safely. The key is using the prop inertia of a non clutch drive and / or a reasonable sized flywheel to force the belt to start slipping. In this case the manufacturer chose to assume the bearing lock up was less likely than a belt failure and or the pump leaking from belt side load. Since the original design the use of dual belts has been questionable in auto engine conversions including the belt reduction designs. Stratus for example has had several dual belt failures where one belt failed and then took out the other belt and went to a single wider belt. Eggenfelner recently had a multi belt reduction unit fail all the belts from a single FOD starting with a single belt that progressed to the rest of the belts and dropped the design. Perhaps a single belt under slightly more tension is a better way to go and risk water pump leakage on this specific application. I have considered this and am considering a single belt as its simple to do and pump shaft leakage is a slow failure and thus simple to detect the loss of coolant before its a serious risk to the engine. In any event its better than a locked engine and becoming a glider where I live. Lets see; 95% of the time its a stump farm, high trees, rough mountain sides, or cold seas for landing sites. The trades in an auto engine conversion are many. Here the Sprague clutch allowed a saving of 20 pounds of flywheel to reduce the torsional loads from a 4 cyl engine. Much the same as the flywheel on Lyc vs no flywheel on the Cont where the torsionals are different due to basic engine design. Or the Cont trade of accessory gear drive for the alternator vs the Lyc belt drive. Different solutions from different designers. No criticism of your comments just a clarification of the exact configuration of the failure and its effects. I would not expect that 99% of this list members know the specific design of the subject system. Just as we would not consider using a used crank with out magniflux etc, we should not use a repaired alternator without new HI quality bearings. Paul snipped ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:42 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 5, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Dave N6030X wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > > > LOL!!! That's great Brian! > It just hit me! > > There are no women on aviation internet forums!!! Well, there are a few and it is usually worth paying attention when they speak. > > We're here to answer each other's questions, even if we don't have > the answer!!! > > (slapping head) > Wow. Yeah, it is funny but it is scary at the same time. There is another variation of MAS that is addressed by, "just because you can doesn't mean you should." ;-) Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:53:07 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Is TIR engineer speak for "total included run out"? Charlie Kuss ---- Paul Messinger wrote: > The pulley is deep dished and the belt groove is actually slightly inside > the span of the shaft bearings. > > The problem with outer third bearings is alignment. This is a major problem > with reduction units that have a hard coupling to the crank and in theory an > outer bearing helps the cog belt side load. In fact it usually promotes > failure as the TIR of the outer support must be less than 0.0005" over all > conditions or it will add to the crank bearing load. > > Frankly I believe there is no real concern with the water pump bearing > failure but clearly some are worried. I have torn down over a dozen subaru > engines and none had pump shaft wear that I could see. Brand new pumps are > available and not expensive so its no big deal to start with new parts. > > I was only relating the stated reason (by the mfgr) for the dual belts as > well as the idea of redundancy. The reason I chose to put the pulley set > with dual belts is the changed pully ratios better suited to the higher > average rpm of the auto conversion. The original concept of dual belts for > redundancy has been demonstrated to be false as one belt failure usually > takes out the other. Not unlike the light twin engined aircraft where one > engine failure overstresses (in this case) the pilot and the aircraft > crashes.. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Charlie Kuss > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 6:31 AM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure > > > Paul, > I agree that use of known, high quality parts is the smart thing to do. > I have some knowledge of the Subaru engine (professional auto mechanic) but > don't claim to be a Subaru expert. Have you considered installation of an > "outboard" support bearing (with related shaft) to aid in support of the > water pump? > If the water pump pulley was originally fitted with a cooling fan > (probably not) a stub axle could be attached to this surface to support an > outboard bearing. Failing that, a custom pulley could be machined to > facilitate an outboard support bearing. > Charlie Kuss > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" > > > I agree that a LYC belt drive is a different issue and not likely to be > a problem with a frozen bearing. > > My point is the specific subject auto engine conversion is very > different. Lots of trades to consider and no perfect solution. > > But as you pointed out some time ago bearing failure in a locked failure > mode can happen however rare it might be. > > I might point out the Subaru engine has demonstrated the ability to run > for as long as 30 min with No coolant so if the engine can be kept running > its possible to land safely. The key is using the prop inertia of a non > clutch drive and / or a reasonable sized flywheel to force the belt to start > slipping. In this case the manufacturer chose to assume the bearing lock up > was less likely than a belt failure and or the pump leaking from belt side > load. > > Since the original design the use of dual belts has been questionable in > auto engine conversions including the belt reduction designs. Stratus for > example has had several dual belt failures where one belt failed and then > took out the other belt and went to a single wider belt. Eggenfelner > recently had a multi belt reduction unit fail all the belts from a single > FOD starting with a single belt that progressed to the rest of the belts and > dropped the design. > > Perhaps a single belt under slightly more tension is a better way to go > and risk water pump leakage on this specific application. I have considered > this and am considering a single belt as its simple to do and pump shaft > leakage is a slow failure and thus simple to detect the loss of coolant > before its a serious risk to the engine. In any event its better than a > locked engine and becoming a glider where I live. Lets see; 95% of the time > its a stump farm, high trees, rough mountain sides, or cold seas for landing > sites. > > The trades in an auto engine conversion are many. Here the Sprague > clutch allowed a saving of 20 pounds of flywheel to reduce the torsional > loads from a 4 cyl engine. Much the same as the flywheel on Lyc vs no > flywheel on the Cont where the torsionals are different due to basic engine > design. Or the Cont trade of accessory gear drive for the alternator vs the > Lyc belt drive. Different solutions from different designers. > > No criticism of your comments just a clarification of the exact > configuration of the failure and its effects. I would not expect that 99% of > this list members know the specific design of the subject system. > > Just as we would not consider using a used crank with out magniflux etc, > we should not use a repaired alternator without new HI quality bearings. > > Paul > snipped ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 12:36:16 PM PST US From: Steve Thomas Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? This is a cheap shot. The BMA stuff is excellent. I own two BMA units and I have had nothing but superior support. I don't know about GRT, but I'm also not going to dis them just to make my opinion stand out. BMA has a bulletin board on their site. Look it over. You'll find support as well as criticism. But my experience has been excellent and I think that their product is second-to-none. Best Regards, Steve Thomas SteveT.Net 805-569-0336 Office ________________________________________________________________________ On Aug 5, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote: > BMA is computer people trying to design airplane stuff ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:53:03 PM PST US From: "Bob McCallum" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator seizure engine failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McCallum" total indicator runout Bob McC ----- Original Message ----- > Paul > Is TIR engineer speak for "total included run out"? > Charlie Kuss ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 01:13:25 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: Alternator seizure engine failure This is semi related. I had a generator seize once on a light twin, PA-23-160 Apache. It was a non event and smelled (burned rubber). Fortunitly it was on the ground. The engine started and I got a wiff of something burning. Shut down, investigated and found a smoking belt. Too hot to touch, it was a very soft pathetic looking belt but still on. The V-belt pulleys on my Lyc flywheel pulley are deep as on that generator. The belt is so short I doubt it would come off a sized alt/gen. I suppose if the engine continues to run it could burn thru the belt or possibly start a fire worse case? My guess is it would just get hot, melt and make more slack and just rub and wear away. That is what happened to me. It was just running around the Gen pulley and was very loose. But who really knows all the possible senerios there are. On the Apache the metal cowl is wide open and the belt is cooled. In a homebuilt the belt is shielded from incoming air and covered in a flammable fiberglass cowl. George --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 01:46:22 PM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Is this solder okay? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" ---The Final Word on 63Sn/37Pb or 60Sn/40Pb I posted a post a couple years ago that said you could solder for a million years and never know the dfference. The 63Sn/37Pb solidifies all at once and has no "mushy" range. For some purposes, often more decorative than practical, this is attractive. Since it melts at a slightly lower temperature and solidifies all at once, it solders faster. Wave soldering is done with 63/37 as it also tends to wet most untinned surfaces slightly better. The 60/40 is more common, slightly cheaper, and has a small "mushy" range. While this makes it less shiny, the slight increase in mushiness makes it slightly easier to work with especially with bigger gaps. Most experts on the matter tend to make no distinction between the two. Indeed, The quality of the solder itself and the temperature control of the iron, as well as the flux and the materials to be soldered are far more important to the overall quality of the joint. Final advice--Here's where Brian and I agree--Ersin (now Henkel) Multicore is very good solder. You can get trashy solder that uses recycled materials from Radio Shack, and I hate to point fingers...but...they do have the worst solder on the planet! "Future, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true, and all happiness is assured." - Ambrose Bierce -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=52620#52620 ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 02:53:39 PM PST US From: "Peter Pengilly" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Steve, It's great to hear you have had excellent support. Sorry you took my comment that way, its not meant to be, just my assessment as someone who has been designing military avionic systems for many years. As an example, if you look at the framing rate for calculation and screen refresh of flight critical functions, you will find that GRT (and may be others) process those functions at a faster rate than BMA does. That has a direct impact on your ability to control the aircraft in IMC. I'm not saying that BMA is in any way dangerous or inadequate, just that GRT is better in some functional aspects that are relevant to the question about what's best for IFR. This is a cheap shot. BMA is computer people trying to design airplane stuff ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 03:49:10 PM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Dan, BMA and GRT are not even in the same ball park. I have used product from both company=92s more then once for my own and other peoples aircraft. I=92ll keep this short, I have an A list ( would recommend) , B list ( OK but not the tops) and C list ( would not recommend) for most of the avionics companies out there. BMA is on the C list and GRT is on the A list. GMT has been in the business for a long time and makes good robust reliable equipment. And second and most importantly their support is Great! They stand behind everything they make and they know their stuff and are very knowledgeable. On the other hand BMA=92s equipment is good for the hobbies aviator looking for some cool functions in a box but doesn=92t plain on banking his life on how well it works. I have experienced three major problems with BMA stuff: 1 ' Their EFIS systems are not stable when you enter areas in clouds of high P-static. It is predictable that the BMA will fail when the airplane is highly charged in the clouds. 2 ' I have been able to tumble the gyro on every BMA system I have used up to the G3 line. I must say the fast erect function works well (hardly a consolation). 3 ' The compass system sucks plain and simple. Now on to the most important issue, the customer support is as bad as their compass system. The folks at BMA are a very arrogant bunch who with regularity treats you like you a three year old. Just the other day at Oshkosh I ask one of the BMA people if they had an upgrade or exchange program for the folks who just purchased the G3 looking to go up to the G4 system. They said yes they did, and I quote =93you can Ebay your old one and well sell you a new one.=94 In my opinion the only thing BMA stuff is good for is golfing off a tee. -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 10:14 PM Does anyone have recommendations on GRT vs BMA-Lite? I am looking for a reliable IFR unit. I will go with Dual AHRS, separate avionics buss/battery, etc. The real decision is which vendor ' prices turn out to be pretty similar. Thanks Dan -- -- ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 03:49:10 PM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Great company too. AT the Top of the A list. Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:02 AM PS Have you considered Advanced Flight Systems? They also seem to have a very well engineered product. HYPERLINK "http://www.advanced-control-systems.com/"http://www.advanced-control-sy stems.com/ Pete -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: 05 August 2006 00:14 Does anyone have recommendations on GRT vs BMA-Lite? I am looking for a reliable IFR unit. I will go with Dual AHRS, separate avionics buss/battery, etc. The real decision is which vendor ' prices turn out to be pretty similar. Thanks Dan -- -- ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 04:01:43 PM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Steve, I would disagree with you position about BMA. I have used BMA, Dynon, Chelton, GRT, Advanced, Honeywell, and Crossbow. You are either lucky with yours or you don=92t fly in the clouds. I have installed three BMA systems for folks including myself and have flown behind five and they all suck in the clouds when the airplane picks up P-static. I have had failures on units that I used direct ground shielded wires on every connection and still experienced poor performance with p-static. Try this with you airplane, roll 90 left bank and pull a min. of 2gs for 40 degrees or so and roll 180 deg to right bank and pull a min. of 2gs for 40 degrees and repeat once more and tell me what happens. Try it! Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve Thomas Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 12:30 PM This is a cheap shot. The BMA stuff is excellent. I own two BMA units and I have had nothing but superior support. I don't know about GRT, but I'm also not going to dis them just to make my opinion stand out. BMA has a bulletin board on their site. Look it over. You'll find support as well as criticism. But my experience has been excellent and I think that their product is second-to-none. Best Regards, Steve Thomas SteveT.Net 805-569-0336 Office ________________________________________________________________________ On Aug 5, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote: BMA is computer people trying to design airplane stuff -- -- ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 04:36:39 PM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: Alternator seizure engine failure Please do make general statements. My auto conversion has the alternator cooled by direct inlet air and its in a aluminum cowl. I will grant you some of the belt is semi shielded but not all. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:10 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: Alternator seizure engine failure . In a homebuilt the belt is shielded from incoming air and covered in a flammable fiberglass cowl. George ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 06:31:20 PM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X On the other hand, there are several Corvair builders who have gotten the same sort of brusque brush-off responses trying to get GRT to help them make the tach on the EIS work with their engines, to the point that they have switched from GRT to another brand of tach. I wonder if the EIS and the EFIS staff are completely separate within GRT. Do a Google on "Grand Rapids" Site:FlyCorvair.com Dave Morris At 05:44 PM 8/5/2006, you wrote: >GMT has been in the business for a long time and makes good robust >reliable equipment. And second and most importantly their support >is Great! They stand behind everything they make and they know >their stuff and are very knowledgeable. .... The folks at BMA are >a very arrogant bunch who with regularity treats you like you a >three year old. Just the other day at Oshkosh I ask one of the BMA >people if they had an upgrade or exchange program for the folks who >just purchased the G3 looking to go up to the G4 system. They said >yes they did, and I quote "you can Ebay your old one and well sell >you a new one." ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 07:06:53 PM PST US From: Tim Lewis Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Dan, Have you looked at Advanced Control Systems AF-3500 and AF-3400? Great looking EFIS with engine monitor on same screen or separate screen, certified AHRS (Crossbow 500, the good one), and a good reputation. I'd been planning to use the GRT system, but researched the AF-3500 and saw it at OSH, now I'm sold on the AF-3500. My views on the three choices I considered: Advanced Control Systems: strong history with their engine monitor line (Van's uses it). Great reputation according to the folks at Crossbow and TruTrak (both are collaborating with Advanced on integration). Use of the certified Crossbow 500 AHRS (hardware and software) is a selling point. Screen looks great, even in direct sun. The EFIS-DG and on-screen HSI were the deal-makers for me. Code written in C and assembly, no other operating system to eat computer cycles. Well-regarded AoA. Downside: AF-3500 is a new product, little to no field history on the EFIS product yet. GRT: Strong history of good products and good support. I've been flying their EIS 4000 for 7 years, and like it a lot. GRT EFIS resolution is a bit blocky. No DG presentation on main EFIS screen (I like N/S/E/W DG presentation -- helps my situational awareness). EFIS DG code rides on Windows CE. HITS concept is cool. Blue Mountain: Arrogance, rotten customer interaction. I was considering the company, but the first time I approached their booth at OSH I watched a very interested customer, ready to make a purchase, who expressed his reservation about the operating logic of the unit he was considering. In that unit, the Blue Mountain EFIS required one to go to a screen without visible horizon to adjust altimeter setting. That's obviously a concern... you have to loose your horizon reference to enter a new barometer setting, which would be bad in IMC. The response to the concern from the Blue Mountain staff: "don't buy our unit." They went out of their way to run the guy off. That was all I needed to hear. Blue Mountain was off the table for me. FWIW... Tim Lewis home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a -- Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) RV-6A N47TD -- 850 hrs RV-10 #40059 under construction Dan Beadle wrote: > > Does anyone have recommendations on GRT vs BMA-Lite? I am looking for > a reliable IFR unit. I will go with Dual AHRS, separate avionics > buss/battery, etc. The real decision is which vendor -- prices turn > out to be pretty similar. > > > > Thanks > > > > Dan > > > > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 07:15:06 PM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Is this solder okay? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" PS-- "Ersin" Multicore (R) is now Henkel/Loctite Multicore and they only list 60/40 in their new catalog... -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=52680#52680 ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 08:43:55 PM PST US From: "Bret Smith" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Tim, you failed to note that while the GRT EFIS has a map screen capable of XM weather overlay and traffic (from Garmin 330 XPR), AFS has no map, no weather nor traffic capabilities. Note: neither does Dynon. I wonder if AFS is considering adding this feature in order to be competitive with everyone else (GRT, BMA, Chelton) Bret Smith RV-9A (91314) Mineral Bluff, GA www.FlightInnovations.com _____ [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Lewis Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 10:01 PM Dan, Have you looked at Advanced Control Systems AF-3500 and AF-3400? Great looking EFIS with engine monitor on same screen or separate screen, certified AHRS (Crossbow 500, the good one), and a good reputation. I'd been planning to use the GRT system, but researched the AF-3500 and saw it at OSH, now I'm sold on the AF-3500. My views on the three choices I considered: Advanced Control Systems: strong history with their engine monitor line (Van's uses it). Great reputation according to the folks at Crossbow and TruTrak (both are collaborating with Advanced on integration). Use of the certified Crossbow 500 AHRS (hardware and software) is a selling point. Screen looks great, even in direct sun. The EFIS-DG and on-screen HSI were the deal-makers for me. Code written in C and assembly, no other operating system to eat computer cycles. Well-regarded AoA. Downside: AF-3500 is a new product, little to no field history on the EFIS product yet. GRT: Strong history of good products and good support. I've been flying their EIS 4000 for 7 years, and like it a lot. GRT EFIS resolution is a bit blocky. No DG presentation on main EFIS screen (I like N/S/E/W DG presentation -- helps my situational awareness). EFIS DG code rides on Windows CE. HITS concept is cool. Blue Mountain: Arrogance, rotten customer interaction. I was considering the company, but the first time I approached their booth at OSH I watched a very interested customer, ready to make a purchase, who expressed his reservation about the operating logic of the unit he was considering. In that unit, the Blue Mountain EFIS required one to go to a screen without visible horizon to adjust altimeter setting. That's obviously a concern... you have to loose your horizon reference to enter a new barometer setting, which would be bad in IMC. The response to the concern from the Blue Mountain staff: "don't buy our unit." They went out of their way to run the guy off. That was all I needed to hear. Blue Mountain was off the table for me. FWIW... Tim Lewis home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a -- Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) RV-6A N47TD -- 850 hrs RV-10 #40059 under construction Dan Beadle wrote: Does anyone have recommendations on GRT vs BMA-Lite? I am looking for a reliable IFR unit. I will go with Dual AHRS, separate avionics buss/battery, etc. The real decision is which vendor - prices turn out to be pretty similar. Thanks Dan