Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:30 AM - Re: OBAM vs. ABEA (Dale Ensing)
2. 05:00 AM - Re: Dual Battery/Alternator Question (Tom Gesele)
3. 05:26 AM - 24V LED bulbs (rd2@evenlink.com)
4. 05:53 AM - Re: Problem with Power Sources (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:24 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Charlie Kuss)
6. 06:32 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Charlie Kuss)
7. 10:11 AM - Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) 2 ()
8. 08:37 PM - Re: OBAM vs. ABEA (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: | Re: OBAM vs. ABEA |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
The ABEA words can cause negative vibrations in various ways. Once had a
corporate VP question my management competence because I built and flew an
"experimental" airplane.
Dale Ensing
> All of those words tend to instil negative connotations to anyone
unfamiliar
> with our hobby. To those directly involved the semantics are irrelevant,
to
> those "outsiders" the semantics could mean all the difference between
> acceptance, understanding, appreciation, and rejection, mistrust or fear.
> (just a thought to keep in the back of our minds when the need for
> terminology comes up).
>
> Bob McC
>
do not achieve
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: | Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tom Gesele <tgesele@optonline.net>
First, thanks to Bob and the others for their responses/suggestions.
I am using Z-14 for the electrical system, the alt out loads are 12-15 amps.
The reason for the dual bat/alt system is simply the piece of mind it gives
for if I'm IMC with my two small children in the plane with me. The concept
of two independent systems has been drummed into me since I started flying.
>From what I can tell, the cost issue amounts to around $40 every couple of
years and, considering the operating costs of the plane, won't influence my
decision and the weight is only an issue for the dual 680 solution. If there
is another reason to go with Z-13 over Z-14, please let me know.
Thanks again for the help
- Tom Gesele
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery/Alternator Question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:34 AM 8/15/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tom Gesele <tgesele@optonline.net>
>
>I'm planning a dual battery/dual alternator electrical system for my
>all-electric day/night IFR RV-10 behind an IO-540 and was hoping someone
>could help with my battery selection.
>
>I'll be installing the B&C 40 amp & 20 amp alternators and was considering
>the following battery options:
>
>1) Dual Odyssey 680.
>2) Dual B&C 12 AH.
>3) Single Odyssey 680 + B&C 7AH
>4) Dual Odyssey 545
>
>My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
>weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want to
>do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to compromise
>on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire family.
>
>Thanks in advance for any insights into the selection and, if there are
>other alternatives that I should be considering, please let me know.
I presume you're talking about Z-14. This system would function
nicely on two light batteries . . . but they tend to be expensive
due to low-volumes of production.
Have you considered Z-13/8? What are your alternator-out system loads?
Z-13/8 with one 17 a.h. battery gives you a total hardware weight on
the order of 25 pounds. What's driving you toward a dual battery
installation?
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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Anyone know of a good source for 24V LED bulb replacements?
I found some 24V bulbs @ superbrightleds.com but not in the needed config.
What I am looking for is 15 mm bajonet base, 2 prongs at the same level, 2
contacts on bottom. Also smaller bajonets like 1820 bulb.
Intended to replace e.g. 306, 306, 1820 bulbs.
Any pointers?
Rumen
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: | Problem with Power Sources |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
I agree with Ron, either the diode is bad (not the case since
a new one didn't fix it) or wired wrong which must now be our
working hypothesis. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg
and check your wiring against the photo.
Bob . . .
At 08:12 PM 8/15/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>Ron,
>
>I doubt that you have blown the diode. I'm no expert but have studied
>Bob's drawings and have them in front of me. I must assume that when you
>say "but I can't get the Main bus to feed the E Bus without turning it
>on", "it " refers to the master switch. If this is the case, it is
>working correctly. The master switch activates the main contactor which
>supplies power to the main buss and then the e-buss via the diode. If the
>e-buss is not powering up in this scenario, I would check the orientation
>of the diode. Having it reversed is not going to hurt it, but it just
>won't pass current to the e-buss components.
>
>When the master switch is turned on and the e-buss alternate feed switch
>is turned off, use your voltmeter to look for 12V at the diode, and then
>at the e-buss. When taking these readings, the negative lead of the
>voltmeter should be touching ground. You should have 12V (give or take) at
>the diode and the e-buss.
>
>With master switch on, the e-buss can also get power when the e-buss
>alternate feed switch is turned on.
>
>Bevan
>RV7A finish kit
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
> Patterson
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:03 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Problem with Power Sources
>
>I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery Bus, Main
>Bus and E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the main works of the
>Master, the E bus switch lights the avionics, but I can't get the Main bus
>to feed the E Bus without turning it on.
>
>At first I thought I had miswired and blown the Diode, but I replaced that
>and still have the same squawk. The plane's electrical systems all work,
>but I wonder what I did wrong. I also wonder if I'm placing the whole
>system in jeopardy by using both switches to hot up everything. Appreciate
>any troubleshooting ideas.
>Ron
>RV-4 - 10 hours
>
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>-- 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 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: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
At 04:21 PM 8/14/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 10:34 AM 8/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>
>>The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans
>>connector through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine
>>I think their concern is running some type of large connector
>>through that requires a significant hole.
>>
>>Darwin N. Barrie
>
> Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
> hole under discussion?
>
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
The hole on my RV-8A (older kit) is 3/8" diameter. Owners of newer
RV models (RV-7A & RV-9A) report holes of 5/8" diameter.
Charlie Kuss
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Brett,
Your photo shows the rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer, not
the elevator spar. Please check the size of the hole in the elevator spar.
Charlie Kuss
>Bob, here is a pic of the hole in the rear horizontal stabilizer spar
>(RV-9). I have mine stored but you can see the hole is approx. 5/8 to 3/4".
>
>
>Bret Smith
>RV-9A (91314)
>Mineral Bluff, GA
>www.FlightInnovations.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
>Nuckolls, III
>Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 4:22 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 10:34 AM 8/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >
> >The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans connector
> >through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine I think their
> >concern is running some type of large connector through that requires a
> >significant hole.
> >
> >Darwin N. Barrie
>
> Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
> hole under discussion?
>
>
> 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 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: | Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) 2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Hmmm, sent this yesterday, never made it onto list. here goes another try:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006, rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us said:
There were 2 replies to the magnetic screwdriver thread, one said when
going to A+P school hardware was placed in a bowl that had a magnetic in
the bottom and slight magnetized the hardware and it needed to be
discarded, and there was another reply about having to discard hardware
that becomes magnetic on turbine aircraft.
Where can you not use magnetic hardware safely on a piston, and a turbine
aircraft and why?
I read something from Lycoming when a friend was rebuilding a O-540 about
checking the hydraulic valve lifters with a thin piece of string and a
paperclip and to discard if there was more than some sort of deflection.
Initial I thought it was because it may attract metal particles and fail
the check valve, but it may be that the magnetism may hinder operation of
check valve?
I have a 914 Rotax on a Europa. Has a magnetic plug to catch debris.
Ron Parigoris
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: OBAM vs. ABEA |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:28 AM 8/16/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McCallum"
><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>Just a point of interest and my 1/2 cent input. (way less than 2 cents).
>This thread is the first time I've seen the acronym ABEA, but I have become
>very familiar with OBAM over the past few years on this, and other,
>Matronics lists. I think OBAM is a much better "sell" to the general public
>than any mention of "experimental", "homebuilt", "homemade", or "amateur".
>All of those words tend to instil negative connotations to anyone unfamiliar
>with our hobby. To those directly involved the semantics are irrelevant, to
>those "outsiders" the semantics could mean all the difference between
>acceptance, understanding, appreciation, and rejection, mistrust or fear.
>(just a thought to keep in the back of our minds when the need for
>terminology comes up).
Exactly. Obviously, anyone may craft what ever descriptive
terms they wish to convey meaning to a listener/reader.
I crafted phrase "OBAM" several years ago because I didn't believe
that our craft was well presented to the public -OR- prospective
new builders with words like those you've cited above.
My first introduction to OBAM aviation was about 1967 when
one of the engineers at Cessna's single-engine facility
brought his VW powered Headwind out on a Saturday morning
when we were working overtime on some project. We all went
out to see the airplane and watched Dick fly it away. We had
a good laugh discussing the "toy" airplane and went back
inside to work on "real" airplanes. 20 years later at OSH,
I was amazed at the levels of both craftsmanship and
technology in the amateur-built aircraft community. That
was the year the 'Connection was conceived.
In years since, we're all aware of how far we've come
and many of us have a vision of how far we can still go,
given the right circumstances. Part of those circumstances
include an elevation of our craft from that of a "poor
street urchin" amongst those who make their living
at designing, building, selling, maintaining and
(ugh) regulating aviation. The future is also dependent
on public perceptions . . . for when it comes to
regulation, those who would broaden their professional
horizons will go to Congress for a charter claiming
that we are loose cannons building death traps from which
we and the public must be protected.
OC wrote in an earlier post:
B) People who see the term OBAM over and over begin to think that
it is indeed only the Owner or only the Builder who may Maintain
the aircraft. This is misleading and needs to be clarified every
once in a while, in fact just recently on this list.
I'll suggest that a fundamental attribution error
is at work here. OBAM is not exclusive. It simply
acknowledges the fact that the vast majority of
participants in the OBAM aviation community are
here because they CAN build and maintain their personal
aircraft with an investment of sweat-equity as
opposed hiring "certified" assistance. This is in
stark contrast to the certificated side of the house which
IS very exclusive were the majority of owners do
little maintenance and no building at all.
C) Use of the term OBAM causes people tend to think that every
aircraft in our community must have been Built by the current
Owner.
How so? FAE is in play here too. Owners can both "build"
and "maintain" for the vast majority of what needs to
be done on the airplane.
But ownership by individuals subsequent to the builder is very
common in our community. There are some significant issues involved
with subsequent ownership.
Absolutely . . . but the only exclusion is that subsequent
owners need to seek the occasional sprinkling of holy
water for things that they've done. This is a tiny fraction
of the total $time$ expended on aircraft maintenance or
modification and does not alter the basic premise for
which most folks choose to either build or acquire such
aircraft.
Confusing? Only for those who are mired in tradition
and homage to regulation. I have no arguments with those
who work in and embrace that world. I too work in that
world but choose not to embrace it. If there is to be any future
for small aircraft it's in the OBAM universe not the
ABEA universe . . . and I'm pleased to explain the
differences to anyone who is confused.
Bob . . .
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! --
|