---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 08/23/06: 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:24 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Bill Denton) 2. 05:46 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Dave N6030X) 3. 06:07 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Gilles Thesee) 4. 06:41 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Tom Gesele) 5. 06:42 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Brian Lloyd) 6. 06:47 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Brian Lloyd) 7. 06:55 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Gilles Thesee) 8. 07:05 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Brian Lloyd) 9. 07:11 AM - Re: MOV's/ Lets more on and stop this interchange! (Paul Messinger) 10. 07:11 AM - Re: B-lead Contactors (was MOV's) (Paul Messinger) 11. 07:11 AM - Re: Re: MOV's (Paul Messinger) 12. 07:24 AM - Re: Potentiometers question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 13. 07:34 AM - Re: Re: MOV's/ Lets more on and stop this interchange! (Hopperdhh@aol.com) 14. 07:37 AM - Re: Ergonomics (glen matejcek) 15. 07:43 AM - Re: Re: MOV's (Paul Messinger) 16. 07:47 AM - Re: people (glen matejcek) 17. 08:02 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Jim Pleasants) 18. 08:17 AM - Re: Re: MOV's (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 19. 08:41 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (FLYaDIVE@aol.com) 20. 08:55 AM - Re: Re: MOV's/ Lets more on and stop this interchange! (Paul Messinger) 21. 09:15 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Gilles Thesee) 22. 09:16 AM - Re: Re: Pullable 80A Circuit Breaker (Doug Windhorn) 23. 10:00 AM - Re: Re: MOV's (Paul Messinger) 24. 10:41 AM - PWRgate (Bob C.) 25. 10:41 AM - PWRgate (Bob C.) 26. 10:46 AM - Contactbounce PIX (Paul Messinger) 27. 10:51 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Mike) 28. 11:09 AM - Re: Re: Potentiometers question (Ken) 29. 03:51 PM - Re: Flap switches/relay wiring (Jon & Kathryn Hults) 30. 06:41 PM - "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? (Deems Davis) 31. 07:18 PM - Re: "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? (Brian Lloyd) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:24:48 AM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" Given that this started as a discussion of the hazards of having the flap control mounted on the stick, wouldn't mounting the speed brake control on the stick pose a similar hazard? -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:12 PM Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" In my rather sedate Glasair III I have speed brakes, coolie hat trim (aileron and elevator), CWS (control wheel steering for the AP), PTT, Xponder Ident, and AP disconnect. The CP has duplicate switches but all except PTT are disabled by a panel mounted transfer switch. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wright Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:28 PM Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Wright" Hear, hear! Maybe add AP disconnect in lieu of the weapons switches.... Do not archive Rob Wright -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd A lot of people seem to want to move functions onto their stick or their throttle. I would counsel some thought about how you use that function before you rush to put it on your stick. The first question is; how much do you use that function? One of the popular functions to put on the stick seems to be the IDENT function of the transponder. How often does ATC ask you to squawk IDENT? Not very often. How hard is it to reach over and press the ident button on the xpdr? Probably not too hard. An IDENT button on your stick or yoke requires you do add wiring and a switch. How much is that likely to gain you in terms of ease of use? I bet that the total amount of effort required to push the IDENT button every time ATC asks you for the life of your airplane is less than the time it will take you to wire the switch. Not a great return on investment. Now, about the flaps. Again, this is not something you are going to be using over and over again in one flight. You are going to use it once or twice per flight. Again, no big impact to have to move your hand to a flap switch on the panel or near your throttle. Likewise something like that radio active/standby frequency toggle. Since you have to put your hand up to the radio to change the frequency anyway, you may as well press the button to toggle between active and standby. So think about the kinds of things you use over and over again in flight. The short list that comes to mind: 1. radio PTT 2. intercom PTT 3. speed brakes 4. trim 5. weapons select 6. weapons release There just isn't a whole lot more you are going to use enough to justify putting it on the stick or throttle so maybe you just want to keep it simple. Brian ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:46:24 AM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X How about putting the starter switch on the throttle, so you can do an in-flight restart without taking your hands off the sticks and throttle. Dave Morris At 07:22 AM 8/23/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > >Given that this started as a discussion of the hazards of having the flap >control mounted on the stick, wouldn't mounting the speed brake control on >the stick pose a similar hazard? > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bruce >Gray >Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:12 PM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay >wiring) > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" > >In my rather sedate Glasair III I have speed brakes, coolie hat trim >(aileron and elevator), CWS (control wheel steering for the AP), PTT, >Xponder Ident, and AP disconnect. The CP has duplicate switches but all >except PTT are disabled by a panel mounted transfer switch. > >Bruce >www.glasair.org > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob >Wright >Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:28 PM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Wright" > > >Hear, hear! > >Maybe add AP disconnect in lieu of the weapons switches.... > >Do not archive > >Rob Wright > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian >Lloyd >Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:35 PM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > >A lot of people seem to want to move functions onto their stick or their >throttle. I would counsel some thought about how you use that function >before you rush to put it on your stick. > >The first question is; how much do you use that function? One of the >popular functions to put on the stick seems to be the IDENT function of >the transponder. How often does ATC ask you to squawk IDENT? Not very >often. How hard is it to reach over and press the ident button on the >xpdr? Probably not too hard. An IDENT button on your stick or yoke >requires you do add wiring and a switch. How much is that likely to gain >you in terms of ease of use? I bet that the total amount of effort >required to push the IDENT button every time ATC asks you for the life >of your airplane is less than the time it will take you to wire the >switch. Not a great return on investment. > >Now, about the flaps. Again, this is not something you are going to be >using over and over again in one flight. You are going to use it once or >twice per flight. Again, no big impact to have to move your hand to a >flap switch on the panel or near your throttle. > >Likewise something like that radio active/standby frequency toggle. >Since you have to put your hand up to the radio to change the frequency >anyway, you may as well press the button to toggle between active and >standby. > >So think about the kinds of things you use over and over again in >flight. The short list that comes to mind: > >1. radio PTT >2. intercom PTT >3. speed brakes >4. trim >5. weapons select >6. weapons release > >There just isn't a whole lot more you are going to use enough to justify >putting it on the stick or throttle so maybe you just want to keep it >simple. > >Brian > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:07:31 AM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee Hi Dave, > > > How about putting the starter switch on the throttle, so you can do an > in-flight restart without taking your hands off the sticks and throttle. > Er, how many times in a flight do you restart your engine ? The last time I had to was 16 years ago, when the prop stopped in a vertical manoeuver during an advanced aerobatic contest. And yes, reaching for the starter switch during the 4 Gs pull out proved an interesting exercice. No one noticed from the ground. But what is the point in normal cases ? One very good location for the starter switch, is near the fuel valve, with an arrangement such that the switch is covered by the valve handle when in the closed position. No starting with the fuel valve closed. The ubiquitous (in France) Robin DR400 have this feature. PTT Trims Auto pilot disengage That's all I see necessary on the throttle and stick in a civilian airplane. Someone mentionned Intercom PTT, what's the use for such a device ? Best regards, Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:51 AM PST US From: Tom Gesele Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tom Gesele Based on the normal crew I plan on having in my plane (wife and two young daughters) - I'm planning on putting the pilot isolate switch for the intercom on the stick grip. It's what I've always dreamed of - a mute switch for the girls in my life... please... do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:35 PM Subject: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd A lot of people seem to want to move functions onto their stick or their throttle. I would counsel some thought about how you use that function before you rush to put it on your stick. The first question is; how much do you use that function? One of the popular functions to put on the stick seems to be the IDENT function of the transponder. How often does ATC ask you to squawk IDENT? Not very often. How hard is it to reach over and press the ident button on the xpdr? Probably not too hard. An IDENT button on your stick or yoke requires you do add wiring and a switch. How much is that likely to gain you in terms of ease of use? I bet that the total amount of effort required to push the IDENT button every time ATC asks you for the life of your airplane is less than the time it will take you to wire the switch. Not a great return on investment. Now, about the flaps. Again, this is not something you are going to be using over and over again in one flight. You are going to use it once or twice per flight. Again, no big impact to have to move your hand to a flap switch on the panel or near your throttle. Likewise something like that radio active/standby frequency toggle. Since you have to put your hand up to the radio to change the frequency anyway, you may as well press the button to toggle between active and standby. So think about the kinds of things you use over and over again in flight. The short list that comes to mind: 1. radio PTT 2. intercom PTT 3. speed brakes 4. trim 5. weapons select 6. weapons release There just isn't a whole lot more you are going to use enough to justify putting it on the stick or throttle so maybe you just want to keep it simple. Brian ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:42:25 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:22 AM, Bill Denton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > > Given that this started as a discussion of the hazards of having > the flap > control mounted on the stick, wouldn't mounting the speed brake > control on > the stick pose a similar hazard? IMHO, no. Speed brakes can be used at any speed without danger to the aircraft. Speed brakes don't produce a pitching moment nor do they change the capability of the structure to carry the load. If you inadvertently deploy the speed brakes in flight you can just feel stupid and laugh it off. If you inadvertently deploy the speed brakes on final you will increase the rate of descent but you could deal with that by increasing thrust (or retracting them again). No, I don't see the accidental deployment of speed brakes and the accidental deployment of flaps in the same category. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian HYPHEN av 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: 06:47:57 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Dave N6030X wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > > > How about putting the starter switch on the throttle, so you can do > an in-flight restart without taking your hands off the sticks and > throttle. How often do you expect to do this? How often might you do this by accident? What happens if you do this by accident? Given how infrequent its use would be I would think that leaving it on the panel is not a real problem. BTW, I would add speed brakes to my list of things that should be on the throttle (stick-equipped aircraft with the throttle in your left hand) along with the radio and intercom PTTs. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian HYPHEN av 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: 06:55:55 AM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee > > > BTW, I would add speed brakes to my list of things that should be on > the throttle (stick-equipped aircraft with the throttle in your left > hand) along with the radio and intercom PTTs. > Hi Brian, Why a PTT for the intercom ? Thanks, Regards, Gilles, http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:05:47 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 23, 2006, at 6:04 AM, Gilles Thesee wrote: > PTT > Trims > Auto pilot disengage > > That's all I see necessary on the throttle and stick in a civilian > airplane.' I would put the PTT on the throttle and I would add the speed brake too. And you are right on the auto pilot disengage. That is one of the things I forgot and *must* be on the stick or yoke. > Someone mentionned Intercom PTT, what's the use for such a device ? Some aircraft have such a high noise level that a voice-operated intercom won't work properly. You use a PTT to activated your mic into the intercom. Helicopters are known for this as are many military aircraft. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian HYPHEN av 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: 07:11:41 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's/ Lets more on and stop this interchange! --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" You missed my point and I am sorry. I was looking for a statement from industry where the uni-directional transorb was NOT to be used. That its not mentioned to me says its OK as it is really a zener or a simple diode if properly connected and the voltage ratings recognized. I know of no such statement as while it may be a silly application it will work just fine. I was expecting a simple " its a stupid application but you are right" from you. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:57 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 08:53 PM 8/22/2006 -0700, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" >> >> >>I cannot let this get past as your statement is in fact TOTALLY >>technically incorrect (vs opinions). >> >>Below requests for links must exclude your own as they need to be >>unbiased! >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >> >>To: >>Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:32 PM >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's >> >> >>> In fact, you cannot use a uni-directional Transorb (or >>> plain-vanilla zener) unless combined with a diode to >>> prevent forward conduction as shown in multitudes of catalogs >>> and literature on relays. >> ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:11:41 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B-lead Contactors (was MOV's) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" I did change the subject to point out a case where the diode as a coil suppressor was a bad idea as it extends the opening time 5x approx. You did state as far as the relay and its drive there was no difference and usually the delay in opening was OK and I agree. But there are cases where its not OK and I stated one used in many aircraft. I did not quantify the exact results of my tests in my post as that is not important to the main point that a simple "B" lead contactor may fail to properly work. The intensity of the arc etc is not important, the fact the arc continues AFTER the contacts are fully open IS. There is a lot more testing required for any interested person in the design of a protection circuit for an internally regulated (very rare) failure of the internal regulator when the failure mode is full power out. As there are thousands of owners out there flying with internal regulated alternators I was trying to point out that the solution once suggested on this list (at one time the simple "B" lead contactor) is not always a reliable one. I had hoped that by now you had looked into a solution. Given the large numbers of aircraft so equipped it would, in my opinion have a high priority. You know simply saying to not use internal regulated alternators, just based on your word alone is not sufficient when major manufacturers/suppliers of experimental aircraft parts etc say otherwise. My point was to be an informer of a problem and yes it does relate to the Transorb in a way as I know of NO case where a transorb will not be as good as a diode. I just pointed out where a diode was NOT as good. My conclusion was you cannot go wrong with a transorb (and you can with a diode) and so far you do not seem to have case that disputes that conclusion. Personally I have changed my mind about internally regulated alternators after my tests of several years ago. I did and do not have what I consider a good solution to the problem other that the Kilovac contactor which will cleanly break a runaway alternator safely. I did mention on this list recently how to convert a ND alternator to external regulation with a simple mod to the regulator. I offered to post an article on the subject but only a couple showed interest and that was not enough for me to spend the time on it. Sorry I seem to be unable to state my point without your misunderstanding it. Paul ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:11:42 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" Bob I love 99% of your posts. You are doing a great job in helping people understand and wire their aircraft and based on my limited accident investigation of auto engine powered aircraft. I would guess you have saved hundreds of lives in the past 10 years. The stupid things people do that do not know of your information is astounding. However what I was asking for is independent backup of your conclusions as my background and experience as well as all the data I can find support my opinion not yours. What is wrong with asking for independent backup. EVERY source (several beyond what has been mentioned recently) I can find that really evaluates (and stacks) the different suppression methods put the simple diode at the bottom and the bi-directional transorb (or its equivalent) at the top. Sure the different approaches are "application dependent" as which work better and which are not as good. My point is the transorb always is good (and at the top of the lost) so why not use it. No need to retrofit and replace diodes IF you were to go on and discuss the cases where the diode was not as good. The only published paper that disagrees with me comes from you. How about an industry recognized paper that supports your position? Teachers must be able to backup what they say with independent references or the student can waver about that and anything else the teacher says. The "prove me wrong" is interesting but not useful as most students have no ability to try. I have no interest in trying to prove what the industry says in unison. I did see the proving data in the EMI lab when I worked in aerospace that supported the industry and we simply proceeded on. Why not?, there was no significant mechanical, electrical or cost difference and in some cases there was a functional improvement. Sure 90% of the time a diode was just fine but in the other cases it was not. I can and have been a teacher but you want to be a teacher and yet get upset when the student says "prove it". Using only your position (which differs from industry) is not enough for me (and some others unwilling to post) given the predictable results. A test by you of a single case or a couple of cases does not make the statement universally true in all cases. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:18 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 08:19 PM 8/22/2006 -0700, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" >> >> >>As I have stated in my original post which you (apparently do not want to >>respond to) I will not get into a debate with you ever again (actually on >>ANY subject) and this subject (transorbs) has been debated between us >>starting nearly 10 years ago. > > Yup, that conversation has been enshrined in bytes at > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spike.pdf > > >>If you truly are interested in the reasons (pros and cons) of the various >>types of coil suppression please consider reviewing the references Eric >>posted as your reference had little info other than to illustrate the >>types of suppression relay delays. Yes (as you have stated) the total >>circuit (not just the coil) drives the suppression method and Transorbs >>always work and diodes only usually work. > > I've read those references. And I've explained what > I've found in them that was in error. If you want > to worship at the altars of Tyco-Amp or Potter-Brumfield > based on your blind acceptance of their Word, that's > your choice . . . but expect to be challenged when you > preach philosophies you cannot yourself explain. You > expose yourself as a propagandist and not as a teacher. > >>I will not respond to your comments below (however erroneous some may be) >>as there is no point. > > If you can't be a teacher then don't get into > the sandbox to throw mud. Your drive-by insinuations > that errors in my posting are unworthy of your > time and effort is consistent with the behavior > you favored 6 years ago. You stood off and threw > rocks at my explanations and NEVER offered a single > alternative supported by your own explanation of > the underlying physics. > > You had plenty to complain about but never a > plan consistent with anyone else's design goals but > your own. You want to play? Fine. If not, then > you know the way out. The unsubscribe link is: > > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:24:13 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Potentiometers question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:26 PM 8/22/2006 -0400, you wrote: Bob, I am building a RV10 and am using your wiring diagram, dual Alt dual bus. I am also installing a blower motor to use as a source to blow heated air on to the windscreen. I have sourced a blower, via west marine that is 12 volts 6amp and will work I think quite nice. I would like to have a variable switch/potentiometer to control the unit, to turn it on as well as control the fan speed. I have been to DIGIKEY and Mouser to find a POT that would work, the problem is that I don't know what values to use 5K 10K 15K 25K etc&..for this application. Can you provide any guidance&.Your help is appreciated You're going to need something heftier than a panel-mounted, stand-alone potentiometer. Potentiometers are limited to currents on the order of a few milliamperes. Rheostats (really BIG potentiometers) are available to handle much larger currents on the order of amps . . . but they get so hot and are so large that mounting them on the panel (or anywhere else in the airplane) is not practical. You need a variable duty cycle motor controller. A number of folks here on the List have been modifying a kit offered by Marlin P Jones at: http://www.mpja.com/productview.asp?product=4057+MD This product is advertised as capable of handling 10A of motor current. As you can see, it's CONTROLLED by a relatively small potentiometer (milliamps) but the motor current is carried by a transistor on a heatsink (amps). I know nothing about this kit and it has some obvious packaging issues for aircraft. The electronics board needs to be mounted in some kind of box and the potentiometer brought out on leads to be mounted on the panel. Suggest you join the AeroElectric List and talk with folks who have used this kit. They can probably offer a variety of options for utilizing this kit in your project. 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 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:34:55 AM PST US From: Hopperdhh@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's/ Lets more on and stop this interchange! In the automotive world, cars (at least General Motors cars) have to withstand reverse battery in case someone jumpers a dead battery with a good 12 volt battery backwards for a specified period of time. I don't remember the time. It may be 1 minute or only 10 seconds, but they don't want that to wipe out anything on the car. Maybe this applies to unidirectional Transzorbs, I'm not sure. Just a thought. Dan Hopper Retired Automotive Engineer -- Delphi Delco Electronics (was GM) RV-7A In a message dated 8/23/2006 10:16:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, paulm@olypen.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" You missed my point and I am sorry. I was looking for a statement from industry where the uni-directional transorb was NOT to be used. That its not mentioned to me says its OK as it is really a zener or a simple diode if properly connected and the voltage ratings recognized. I know of no such statement as while it may be a silly application it will work just fine. I was expecting a simple " its a stupid application but you are right" from you. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:57 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 08:53 PM 8/22/2006 -0700, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" >> >> >>I cannot let this get past as your statement is in fact TOTALLY >>technically incorrect (vs opinions). >> >>Below requests for links must exclude your own as they need to be >>unbiased! >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >> >>To: >>Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:32 PM >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's >> >> >>> In fact, you cannot use a uni-directional Transorb (or >>> plain-vanilla zener) unless combined with a diode to >>> prevent forward conduction as shown in multitudes of catalogs >>> and literature on relays. >> ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:37:52 AM PST US From: "glen matejcek" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Ergonomics --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" Expanding a bit on where this thread has gone, let me toss out some thoughts on cockpit ergonomics and safety. I'm building an RV-8, which of course has a narrow panel. Economy of acreage is important. Also, a fundamental of crashworthiness is to not put switches where you will be impaled by them. Hence, I don't have any switches on my main panel. My basic concept for switch location is to put the highest usage switches on the stick, with the next highest usage rate and 'use 'em quick' safety related switches on the left (throttle hand) side, leaving the right side (stick hand) for the rarely used stuff. The application of this philosophy to my particular equipment list leads to the following: My RAC / MAC stick grip has PTT, 2 axis trim, A/P disconnect, and EFIS engine page call up / dismiss. Nothing on the throttle. The lower edge of the throttle quadrant ass'y is home to the cockpit light dimmers. Just above / fwd of the throttle on the left sub panel and within very easy reach of my throttle hand are my 'oh crap' switches. They include fuel pump, A/P arm / off, rear seat stick switch disable / trim sys disable, and flaps. The next row up has the music auto mute function, ARC, and OVM reset switches. Just above are the clock and the flap position indicator. The left side of the main panel holds xpder, coms, back up EFIS, and nav. Central and right is the main EFIS display. The right side of the panel holds the audio panel. The right sub panel has the trim indicators, remote ELT head, battery switches, ignition switches, EFIS 2 switch, and start switch. The right console has the exterior lights, pitot heat, Hobbs meter, and power distribution CBs. So far, I'm very happy with this layout. Of course, it' the 12th iteration of the design. I would encourage folks to take their time and prioritize and group switches according to some consistent and user friendly scheme. 'Chair flying' complete flight profiles, imagining / simulating the whole process from power up through engine start, T/o, ldg, and securing will help a lot. Besides, then you'll have a good excuse when the spouse catches you sitting there making airplane noises... glen matejcek aerobubba@earthlink.net ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:23 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" Yes I remember that interchange and its a wonderful example how selective cut and paste can change what I was saying and its context. Its a masterpiece. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:18 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's > Yup, that conversation has been enshrined in bytes at > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spike.pdf > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:47:23 AM PST US From: "glen matejcek" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: people --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" Hey Ernest- ...I must convince ignoramuses... I believe the word you're looking for is 'ignorama', although I suppose there might be some women out there who feel it should be 'ignorami'. Sorry, I couldn't resist! ; - ) ; - ) and for pete's sake, DO NOT ARCHIVE this silliness!! glen matejcek aerobubba@earthlink.net ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 08:02:38 AM PST US From: "Jim Pleasants" Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pleasants" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:34 PM Subject: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) > So think about the kinds of things you use over and over again in > flight. The short list that comes to mind: > 5. weapons select > 6. weapons release So, has anyone developed an after-market for sidewinder/rocket rails, or MERs/TERs for an RV? And, we will need a gunsight. DO NOT ARCHIVE Jim Pleasants ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:17:56 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:07 AM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" > >Bob I love 99% of your posts. You are doing a great job in helping people >understand and wire their aircraft and based on my limited accident >investigation of auto engine powered aircraft. > >I would guess you have saved hundreds of lives in the past 10 years. > >The stupid things people do that do not know of your information is >astounding. Thank you for the kind words . . . >However what I was asking for is independent backup of your conclusions as >my background and experience as well as all the data I can find support my >opinion not yours. I'm only asking for independent review (yours) of what I've offered based on your perceptions of the physics and NOT upon a dump from industry's promotional literature. >What is wrong with asking for independent backup. EVERY source (several >beyond what has been mentioned recently) I can find that really evaluates >(and stacks) the different suppression methods put the simple diode at the >bottom and the bi-directional transorb (or its equivalent) at the top. >Sure the different approaches are "application dependent" as which work >better and which are not as good. My point is the transorb always is good >(and at the top of the lost) so why not use it. No need to retrofit and >replace diodes IF you were to go on and discuss the cases where the diode >was not as good. > >The only published paper that disagrees with me comes from you. How about >an industry recognized paper that supports your position? Teachers must be >able to backup what they say with independent references or the student >can waver about that and anything else the teacher says. The "prove me >wrong" is interesting but not useful as most students have no ability to try. I am NOT disagreeing with you in that the zener-diode technique certainly works 100% of the time. The entire thrust of my posting was to dispel any notions that folks who choose to use the lowly diode are at-risk for reduced relay and contactor life. It's just that simple sir. I'm mystified as to why you get wrapped around the good-better-best axle when those terms are non-quantified and not even offered in the context of exactly HOW one technique excels. You're fond of citing lots of literature while I prefer to make measurements and explore for myself the value/hazards of any technique being discussed. I've offered my experimental results for the purpose of soliciting considered critical review to either support or refute a hypothesis. I chose this technique because literature without supporting experimental data proves nothing while the repeatable experiment offered for critical review illuminates the path for success. >I have no interest in trying to prove what the industry says in unison. I >did see the proving data in the EMI lab when I worked in aerospace that >supported the industry and we simply proceeded on. Why not?, there was no >significant mechanical, electrical or cost difference and in some cases >there was a functional improvement. Sure 90% of the time a diode was just >fine but in the other cases it was not. . . . agreed . . . and I'm only suggesting that the 10% of cases were the simple diode is found lacking do not occur in the OBAM aircraft. >I can and have been a teacher but you want to be a teacher and yet get >upset when the student says "prove it". Nobody, repeat NOBODY upsets me over a discussion of facts and physics. Your the only person on this list who has succeeded in upsetting me when you alluded to a cadre of unhappy customers of my products who according to you were so intimidated by my aura that they would not return their purchases for a full refund. I could only assume that you had chosen to insert yourself into what was intended to be an honorable supplier/consumer relationship. That DID upset me. I will confess to some frustration when data and test techniques offered to support a hypothesis produces a literature storm of information not specific to discussion of the hypothesis. > Using only your position (which differs from industry) is not enough for > me (and some others unwilling to post) > given the predictable results. A test by you of a single case or a > couple of cases does > not make the statement universally true in all cases. My position differs not a whit from industry when it comes to making measurements and deducing performance or lack thereof based on those measurements. But like laundry soap, cars, and mouthwash, the promotional literature (including much of the applications notes) are not written with good science and understanding as goals. For example: I'm about ready to publish a detailed review of the data sheet for the MC33092 internal regulator where I will show that in spite of the product's modern integrated circuit manufacturing with a whole fist full of transistors, the manner in which it is used in alternators prevents exploitation of its special features. In practice, it performs no better than the two-transistor regulators we were installing on Cessnas 40 years ago. By your logic I could consider assembling a house with titanium nails and be 100% assured of future performance. When the astute system designer compares REQUIREMENTS with techniques and materials capable of meeting requirements, the competitive and successful product may very well NOT use titanium nails. Words here on the list have recommended that builders rip out all their diodes and replace them with a more expensive product and promoted by the notion that doing so has cost-of-ownership value for having made the switch. I am only suggesting that the notion is pure marketing hype and not supported by any experiments I've conducted to explore the potential benefits. I was not arguing any good-better-best, only against the notion that the product being offered produces a demonstrable return on investment. In this case a plain ol' cement coated box nail does the job. If someone chooses to use the titanium nail cause he has the time and doesn't mind the expense, fine. But I object to marketing the titanium nail with the use of unsupported assertions designed to instill worries on the part of the potential neophyte customer. There's that honorable consumer/supplier relationship thing again. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:32 AM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com In a message dated 8/23/06 11:08:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jpleasants@bellsouth.net writes: > So, has anyone developed an after-market for sidewinder/rocket rails, or > MERs/TERs for an RV? And, we will need a gunsight. > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > Jim Pleasants ===================== I have hard points for an AA-5. ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:50 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's/ Lets more on and stop this interchange! I agree with your title of your post. As for your comment about reverse voltage it would apply to diodes also. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Hopperdhh@aol.com To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:33 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's/ Lets more on and stop this interchange! In the automotive world, cars (at least General Motors cars) have to withstand reverse battery in case someone jumpers a dead battery with a good 12 volt battery backwards for a specified period of time. I don't remember the time. It may be 1 minute or only 10 seconds, but they don't want that to wipe out anything on the car. Maybe this applies to unidirectional Transzorbs, I'm not sure. Just a thought. Dan Hopper Retired Automotive Engineer -- Delphi Delco Electronics (was GM) RV-7A In a message dated 8/23/2006 10:16:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, paulm@olypen.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" You missed my point and I am sorry. I was looking for a statement from industry where the uni-directional transorb was NOT to be used. That its not mentioned to me says its OK as it is really a zener or a simple diode if properly connected and the voltage ratings recognized. I know of no such statement as while it may be a silly application it will work just fine. I was expecting a simple " its a stupid application but you are right" from you. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:57 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 08:53 PM 8/22/2006 -0700, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" >> >> >>I cannot let this get past as your statement is in fact TOTALLY >>technically incorrect (vs opinions). >> >>Below requests for links must exclude your own as they need to be >>unbiased! >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >> >>To: >>Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:32 PM >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's >> >> >>> In fact, you cannot use a uni-directional Transorb (or >>> plain-vanilla zener) unless combined with a diode to >>> prevent forward conduction as shown in multitudes of catalogs >>> and literature on nbsp; = Use lities Day --> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - bsp; --> nbsp; - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI - ======================== ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:15:53 AM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee Brian, > >> Someone mentionned Intercom PTT, what's the use for such a device ? > > Some aircraft have such a high noise level that a voice-operated > intercom won't work properly. You use a PTT to activated your mic into > the intercom. Helicopters are known for this as are many military > aircraft. Understand. Thank you for responding. Best regards, Gilles, http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 09:16:18 AM PST US From: "Doug Windhorn" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Pullable 80A Circuit Breaker --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" Matt, I am not an expert either, but I*R is not the only source of heat that might affect a CB. For thermally activated (TA) CB, it is quite possible for external heat sources to reduce the load carrying capacity of the TACB by providing "pre-heating." Say a TACB will trip when the sensing element reaches 600F (I have no idea what the actual temperature is - it may be much less than that). At ambient temperature of 70F, we have to provide enough heating to elevate the sensor temperature by 530F. However, if a situation arises which causes the ambient temp of the unit to rise, say to 300F, the amount of current the TACB to elevate the temp of the sensor an additional 300F is decreased (i.e., reduced capacity). I visited a client just this week where they were having nuisance trips of a circuit breaker. Cause: determined to be a bad connection of the CB to the bus. Remedy: the bus was flipped over to get the pitting away from the CB contacts and a secure connection was then made. Regards, Doug Windhorn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Prather" Sent: Tuesday, 22 August, 2006 9:15 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Pullable 80A Circuit Breaker > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" > > > Err.. I am not an expert, but I don't think that is completely correct. > > Heat generated is correct, but the heat is generated solely by the current > passing through the CB. The system voltage has no bearing on how much > heat is generated. Draw the circuit and you can see why. The CB goes in > series with the load. Beit a 2V or 200V system, a particular current > through the CB causes a corresponding voltage drop across the CB while the > CB is closed. > > The voltage rating is more related to the ability of the CB to open an > operating (overloaded) circuit. The higher the system voltage the harder > it is to open the circuit (break the current) for a given current. > Voltage rating is likely about contact speed and distance (maybe not > both). A larger system voltage implies the need for faster contacts > and/or larger contact distance. > > > Regards, > > Matt- > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Denis Walsh >> >> >> While I am waiting for the real experts to weigh in, I offer the >> following unsubstantiated feeling: >> >> I don't think a cb "senses" either volts or amps. Rather it reacts >> to heat, whose generation is better measured in watts which is a >> function of both. >> >> I would therefore surmise that the cb in question would be well >> within its rated range; however would probably not trip a 14 volt >> load until 160 amps. >> >> well, where are the electro-experts now that we need them?? >> Denis Walsh >> >> On Aug 22, 2006, at 07:06 292080008, glen matejcek wrote: >> >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Stan- >>> >>>> I bought one at Sun n Fun only to discover later that it is 28v. >>> >>> 28V is the maximum system voltage for that CB. The CB you bought >>> should be >>> fine for your 14V installation. >>> >>> glen matejcek >>> aerobubba@earthlink.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 10:00:41 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" I have long ago given up trying to challenge every industry position. I do not have the time or interest to do so. When I do run across something in a design that is not consistent with the industry I do, and have investigated just what is different. The industry papers of the time were from relay manufacturers who had no reason to support one suppressor method or the other as they did not sell suppressors of any type (at the time) Their interest appeared to be to show how to get the most reliable use of their products which ranged from very small relays to huge ones and thus the recommendations were designed to be general and not always apply to any specific case. In the case of transorbs; many years ago I noted that a designer had used a diode and there were unwanted noise introduced into the system. It was determined that the opening delay and more important showed start to finish contact opening time was part of the problem. At that time I want into the EMI lab and with expert help we determined that part of the required fix was to quicken the opening contact time (not the delayed start of opening but the duration of contact opening). PART of the solution was replacing the Diode with a Transorb. There was more required that evolved contact arc suppression. The general conclusion was an across the board replacement of diodes with transorbs as it did not hurt and in rare cases prevent problems. No retrofit was made just new design used transorbs. I agree that your documented test of a small relay showed no significant time of contact opening but that is not necessarily so with power contactors seen in aircraft. Now in the case of experimental aircraft I have discovered one case the "B" lead contactor can require a transorb as a partial solution to contact arcing and continued arcing in one failure mode of the alternator. I only intended to point out that case not make a big deal of it. BTW I am not the only you have gotten up set with but perhaps the most memorable. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:16 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 07:07 AM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" >> >> >>Bob I love 99% of your posts. You are doing a great job in helping people >>understand and wire their aircraft and based on my limited accident >>investigation of auto engine powered aircraft. >> >>I would guess you have saved hundreds of lives in the past 10 years. >> >>The stupid things people do that do not know of your information is >>astounding. > > Thank you for the kind words . . . > > >>However what I was asking for is independent backup of your conclusions as >>my background and experience as well as all the data I can find support my >>opinion not yours. > > I'm only asking for independent review (yours) of what I've > offered based on your perceptions of the physics and NOT > upon a dump from industry's promotional literature. > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 10:41:21 AM PST US From: "Bob C. " Subject: AeroElectric-List: PWRgate --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " Bob, West Mountain Radio http://www.westmountainradio.com/SuperPWRgate.htm makes a product call "Super PWRgate" that looks like a reasonable device to support a two battery (one large - one smaller) environment. My total load with lights etc. on is about 45-50A . . . critical load < 20A . . . really critical load < 10A? Please take a look and give your opinion. Thanks, Bob Christensen RV-8 Bldr - SE Iowa ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 10:41:47 AM PST US From: "Bob C. " Subject: AeroElectric-List: PWRgate --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " Bob, West Mountain Radio http://www.westmountainradio.com/SuperPWRgate.htm makes a product call "Super PWRgate" that looks like a reasonable device to support a two battery (one large - one smaller) environment. My total load with lights etc. on is about 45-50A . . . critical load < 20A . . . really critical load < 10A? Please take a look and give your opinion. Thanks, Bob Christensen RV-8 Bldr - SE Iowa ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:55 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Contactbounce PIX I have attached up some scope pictures of contact bounce as well as one of a main bus transient from the removal of a load by turning off a resistive 10 amp load. In all cases the horizontal speed is 1 ms per small square and 2 ms per large square. The vertical resolution is 5V per large square. Only small squares are clear in the transient jpg. All PIX have been greatly reduced in resolution for fast downloading. The contact bounce pix were from the contactor sold by Wicks at the time for cont duty and I added the diode across the coil. There was only enough voltage and current used to show the contact open and close and to eliminate the normal arcing as much as possible when a significant load was switched. My first point is I have seen transients that are repeatable but not high voltage on the bus. High enough to consistently trip Bobs OVP from the design of several years ago. The load was switched off with a 20 amp rated auto relay. The contact bounce on power contactors can be significant but range widely from one test to the next with the same contactor. The Kilovac has no or at most one quick contact bounce on open and none on closing. Here the opening bounce extends over 14MS from start to end. Replacing the diode with a transorb helped shorten the bounce duration but did not eliminate all the bounce. For general interest. There are lots more but I see no point in posting them as relays vary and some bounce more than others. The "fire" across the contacts can in some cases be huge whan large currents and or an inductive load is switched. Paul ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 10:51:13 AM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" Or speed brakes... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wright Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:28 PM Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Wright" Hear, hear! Maybe add AP disconnect in lieu of the weapons switches.... Do not archive Rob Wright -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd A lot of people seem to want to move functions onto their stick or their throttle. I would counsel some thought about how you use that function before you rush to put it on your stick. The first question is; how much do you use that function? One of the popular functions to put on the stick seems to be the IDENT function of the transponder. How often does ATC ask you to squawk IDENT? Not very often. How hard is it to reach over and press the ident button on the xpdr? Probably not too hard. An IDENT button on your stick or yoke requires you do add wiring and a switch. How much is that likely to gain you in terms of ease of use? I bet that the total amount of effort required to push the IDENT button every time ATC asks you for the life of your airplane is less than the time it will take you to wire the switch. Not a great return on investment. Now, about the flaps. Again, this is not something you are going to be using over and over again in one flight. You are going to use it once or twice per flight. Again, no big impact to have to move your hand to a flap switch on the panel or near your throttle. Likewise something like that radio active/standby frequency toggle. Since you have to put your hand up to the radio to change the frequency anyway, you may as well press the button to toggle between active and standby. So think about the kinds of things you use over and over again in flight. The short list that comes to mind: 1. radio PTT 2. intercom PTT 3. speed brakes 4. trim 5. weapons select 6. weapons release There just isn't a whole lot more you are going to use enough to justify putting it on the stick or throttle so maybe you just want to keep it simple. Brian -- -- ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 11:09:07 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Potentiometers question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken sorry I've lost the original post but that is a huge fan for defrost. If you really think you need it you could also look at an automotive fan speed control arrangement. For just blowing air up through the instrument glareshield I found that a little axial fan as seen in computer power supplies seems to work fine for me. No speed control required. Ken Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 02:26 PM 8/22/2006 -0400, you wrote: > > Bob, > > I am building a RV10 and am using your wiring diagram, dual Alt dual > bus. I am also installing a blower motor to use as a source to blow > heated air on to the windscreen. I have sourced a blower, via west > marine that is 12 volts 6amp and will work I think quite nice. I would > like to have a variable switch/potentiometer to control the unit, to > turn it on as well as control the fan speed. I have been to DIGIKEY > and Mouser to find a POT that would work, the problem is that I don't > know what values to use 5K 10K 15K 25K etc&..for this application. > > Can you provide any guidance&.Your help is appreciated > > > You're going to need something heftier than a panel-mounted, > stand-alone potentiometer. Potentiometers are limited to > currents on the order of a few milliamperes. Rheostats (really > BIG potentiometers) are available to handle much larger > currents on the order of amps . . . but they get so hot > and are so large that mounting them on the panel (or anywhere > else in the airplane) is not practical. > > You need a variable duty cycle motor controller. A number of > folks here on the List have been modifying a kit offered by > Marlin P Jones at: > > http://www.mpja.com/productview.asp?product=4057+MD > > This product is advertised as capable of handling 10A > of motor current. As you can see, it's CONTROLLED by > a relatively small potentiometer (milliamps) but the > motor current is carried by a transistor on a heatsink > (amps). I know nothing about this kit and it has some > obvious packaging issues for aircraft. The electronics > board needs to be mounted in some kind of box and the > potentiometer brought out on leads to be mounted on the > panel. > > Suggest you join the AeroElectric List and talk with > folks who have used this kit. They can probably offer > a variety of options for utilizing this kit in your > project. > > Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 03:51:00 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring From: Jon & Kathryn Hults --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jon & Kathryn Hults Aircraft Extras in Ohio ( http://www.aircraftextras.com ) has a system that will disable your flap switch at whatever speed you want...presumably the top of the white arc. That way, inadvertent activation of your flap switch in cruise would do nothing. Inadvertent activation below flap speed would not be prevented, but would cause no harm either. I too am going to have a flap switch on my stick, but I'm also going to install Aircraft Extra's accidental flap deployment protection system. Jon Hults Legacy ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 06:41:25 PM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis I've searched in vain for a flap position switch which has a wide broad flat paddle for the toggle, similar to what Cessna uses. anybody know where you can pick one of the up? Deems Davis # 406 Fuse/Finishing/Panel http://deemsrv10.com/ ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 07:18:10 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 23, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Deems Davis wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis > > > I've searched in vain for a flap position switch which has a wide > broad flat paddle for the toggle, similar to what Cessna uses. > anybody know where you can pick one of the up? Make a paddle out of wood and epoxy it to a standard spring-return-to- center toggle switch. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian HYPHEN av 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