Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:18 AM - Entertainment Audio Switching (MikeEasley@aol.com)
2. 07:13 AM - gmcjetpilot's legacy (Ernest Christley)
3. 07:28 AM - Transponder antenna location (Ken)
4. 08:31 AM - Re: AOPA battery article (Cleone Markwell)
5. 08:44 AM - An exercise in establishment of and compliance with design goals (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:52 AM - Re: Transponder antenna location (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:57 AM - Re: AOPA battery article (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:00 AM - JPI remote mount..... (Jim Baker)
9. 09:27 AM - Re: AOPA battery article (Carlos Trigo)
10. 09:43 AM - Re: AOPA battery article (Kelly McMullen)
11. 09:43 AM - Re: gmcjetpilot (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
12. 09:49 AM - Re: AOPA battery article (Brian Lloyd)
13. 10:08 AM - Re: gmcjetpilot's legacy (John W. Cox)
14. 10:14 AM - Re: OV Module additional requirement (Bob Lee)
15. 10:29 AM - Re: Re: gmcjetpilot (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 10:48 AM - Re: gmcjetpilot's legacy (Bill Boyd)
17. 11:15 AM - Re: AOPA battery article (David M.)
18. 11:17 AM - Argumentative people and personal attacks (Dave N6030X)
19. 12:08 PM - Re: Re: gmcjetpilot (Matt Prather)
20. 12:13 PM - Re: Re: gmcjetpilot ()
21. 12:27 PM - Re: AOPA battery article (Matt Prather)
22. 01:08 PM - Re: Re: gmcjetpilot (Chuck Jensen)
23. 01:21 PM - Re: Re: gmcjetpilot (Sean Stephens)
24. 01:40 PM - Re: Re: gmcjetpilot (Bruce Gray)
25. 03:15 PM - Re: Dual radio interference (europa flugzeug fabrik)
26. 04:18 PM - Re: Re: gmcjetpilot (Allan Aaron)
27. 04:42 PM - Single Display EFIS (Carlos Trigo)
28. 06:24 PM - Re: Single Display EFIS (Deems Davis)
29. 06:30 PM - gmcjetpilot's legacy (Darwin N. Barrie)
30. 07:33 PM - Re: Single Display EFIS (Alan K. Adamson)
31. 07:42 PM - Re: OV Module additional requirement (Ken)
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: | Entertainment Audio Switching |
I am upgrading my entertainment audio to add XM input and also a jack for
future audio input from an iPod. I already have a CD changer. That part is
easy, just a DP3P switch should do it.
At the same time I decided to change (complicate) the output options. The
problem is I have an audio panel that has separate entertainment audio inputs
for the front seats and the rear seats (two inputs). I would like to have a
switch that switches between front/all/rear. All I could figure out was to
use a 4P3P rotary switch or two separate DPST switches.
Any ideas?
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
Lancair ES
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: | gmcjetpilot's legacy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
OK. The guy was/is a blowhard, with obviously way to much time on his hands to
be able to write long rambling dissertations with no point; however....maybe
there is a diamond or two amoungst all that pig....stuff.
Bob wrote:
(1) He refused to acknowledge a modern alternator could experience a gross OV failure
in spite of demonstrations to the contrary. (2) He brushed aside my oft
stated design goals for providing seamless integration of his favorite product
(the IR alternator) into classic aircraft electrical systems.
It irritated the snot out of me that he would never simply state an alternative
set of design goals. He did expound on the benefits that an IVR has...temp compensation,
slow start, etc. I think those are desirable, but not if they don't
fit in with the rest of the design goals. Bob has clearly and succinctly
stated that the design goal is that the pilot have complete control of the charging
system. It seems to me that simply modifying one word would open the door
for IVR systems and maintain or increase the current level of safety. Do we
really need 'complete' control, or will 'ultimate' control suffice? That is,
we allow the IVR to work it's magic was the IVR designers have seen fit to have
the magic performed, but the pilot has "all rights reserved". (S)he can hit
the kill switch and take it out of the system at any time. Yes that might
break the alternator, but isn't it being taken offline because it's already broke?
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Transponder antenna location |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Has anyone tried mounting a transponder antenna on the bottom of the
rear fuselage? That location (about 2/3 of the length of the fuselage
back) slopes upward on a Rebel but it is the location least blanked by
large gear fairings, and metal radiator ducting. Unfortunately the worst
signal would likely be forward to where the ground station I'm trying to
reply to is likely to be during first contact. I am willing to mount the
transponder behind me to keep the coax within the 8.8 feet max specified
by Garmin.
The other option seems to be on the roof. That is apparently not
recommended and it would be near skylights and my head which I'm not
comfortable with. I could get it the minimum recommended 3 feet away
from the VHF antenna but the high wing might tend to blank ground
stations to the side. I suspect that roof mounting would provide a
better signal to other aircraft which is probably more important to me
than a signal to ground so I guess I could put the antenna on the roof
back near the tail. It seems silly to invest in a transponder though
unless it is likely to perform well with both ATC and also traffic
warning devices on other aircraft.
thanks for any comments
Ken
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AOPA battery article |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cleone Markwell <cleone@rr1.net>
Bob, What does OBAM mean?
At 09:29 PM 9/6/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 09:04 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>>---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
>> III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>> >
>> > At 12:44 AM 9/6/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>> >
>> > >The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
>> > >batteries.
>> > >Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
>> > >near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax
>> 912 with a
>> > >20Amp generater, was setting up
>> > >for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box
>> I got with
>> > >my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
>> >
>> > I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
>> > the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
>> > it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
>> > appreciate it.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>>
>>Listers,
>> The relevent article is on page 133 of the September issue
>>Charlie Kuss
>
> Dave sent me a copy. It's an innocuous piece and relatively
> accurate. If I were to expand beyond where it stopped short
> would be to explain the value in KNOWING what your endurance
> loads are and KNOWING if your battery is likely to support
> this load for whatever endurance YOU decide.
>
> There was one rather glaring error on the top of page
> 138 where it's stated that a 1C rated battery is discharged
> at 2C, it will deliver energy for 1/2 hour. Twice the
> load is ALWAYS less than half the previous capacity. By
> the same token, 0.1C load is always more than 10X the
> 1C label capacity.
>
> Exemplar capacity vs. discharge rates are illustrated
> in . . .
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/37AH_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
>
> and
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_Capcity_vs_Load.gif
>
> These graphs from manufacturer's data show that increasing
> loads increases internal losses and that apparent
> capacity drops as load increases.
>
> Our perpetual parents on the TC side have decided that
> "30 minutes" is the magic number for endurance and
> "85% of label capacity" is end of life for the battery.
> This makes the certification effort easy and makes FBOs
> task of selling batteries easier. This is an excellent example of
> standardization that benefits the manufacturers and
> regulators while limiting the owner's ability to tailor
> realistic targets to match his/her own mission requirements.
>
> Neither one of the 30-minute/85% assertions suggest that
> the owner/operator of an airplane might possess tools and
> be willing to acquire skills needed increase personal endurance
> target to say 1 hour. Or, take the time to monitor a battery
> with an eye toward meeting the endurance level such that
> 70% of label capacity is the TRUE end of life for the battery
> in that particular airplane.
>
> Aren't you guys glad you don't have to salute those
> flags? I still like "duration of fuel aboard" for
> endurance and "pitch it when e-bus loads cannot be
> supported for duration of fuel aboard." Of course,
> on the OBAM side of the house we're free to select
> and operate to our personal design goals.
>
>
> 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: | An exercise in establishment of and compliance with |
design goals
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:11 AM 9/7/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley
><echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
>OK. The guy was/is a blowhard, with obviously way to much time on his
>hands to be able to write long rambling dissertations with no
>point; however....maybe there is a diamond or two amoungst all that
>pig....stuff.
>
>Bob wrote:
>(1) He refused to acknowledge a modern alternator could experience a gross
>OV failure in spite of demonstrations to the contrary. (2) He brushed
>aside my oft stated design goals for providing seamless integration of his
>favorite product (the IR alternator) into classic aircraft electrical systems.
>It irritated the snot out of me that he would never simply state an
>alternative set of design goals. He did expound on the benefits that an
>IVR has...temp compensation, slow start, etc. I think those are
>desirable, but not if they don't fit in with the rest of the design
>goals. Bob has clearly and succinctly stated that the design goal is that
>the pilot have complete control of the charging system. It seems to me
>that simply modifying one word would open the door for IVR systems and
>maintain or increase the current level of safety. Do we really need
>'complete' control, or will 'ultimate' control suffice?
Not sure as to the distinction here. Let's reduce it to
the simplest terms: (1) The pilot should be able to operate
an alternator control switch at any time under any
conditions without concern for damage to the alternator
or other components of the system and (2) operation of
that switch is a sure bet - OFF means OFF and ON means ON.
>That is, we allow the IVR to work it's magic was the IVR designers have
>seen fit to have the magic performed,
This has been an interesting study . . . at least for
internal regulation products wherein the manufacturer
offers to "tell all." See the data sheets for a
Freescale (Motorola) MC33032 . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A.pdf
a little study of this document shows that while the
circuit overs "over voltage indication" there is
no provision for "over voltage shutdown". Further,
circuitry tasked with over voltage detection is
SHARED with circuitry for voltage control. This
violates aviation philosophies for separation of
annunciation and control.
An yes, there's a collection of bells-and-whistles
that look and sound good . . . but what has been
the cost of ownership to the aviation community
(or even the automotive community) for NOT having
those bells-and-whistles in the past?
Is there risk of lower reliability due to higher
parts count to acquire features with no demonstrable
benefits?
Now, how closely does the internal regulator of
any popular alternator mimic what we're privileged
to examine on the MC33092? I haven't a clue.
To date, nobody has come forward with clarifying
information on any other product.
The study is being conducted NOT to validate
the features of anyone's product but to illustrate
the depth to which data must be searched to validate
hardware suitability to the task of meeting
design goals.
Bottom line is that a study of the MC33092 is academically
satisfying but lends no insight to support any
claims anyone might make about other products.
My personal design philosophy (approved by
my employers) suggests we assume nothing. If you
have a device capable of dumping out LOTS of energy
in an uncontrollable mode, you put systems in place
to stand off and annunciate that event . . . unless
you can justify a failure rate of less than 1 per
billion flight hours.
> but the pilot has "all rights reserved". (S)he can hit the kill switch
> and take it out of the system at any time. Yes that might break the
> alternator, but isn't it being taken offline because it's already broke?
That was the philosophy behind the original publication
of Z-24. An unanticipated and unhappy consequence was
that Z-24 offered an ability to control the alternator
under conditions that did not meet design goal
(1) above.
Further, since anecdotal data from the field
says that failures greater than 1 per billion
flight hours have been observed, I accepted the task
of crafting a system consistent with the design
goals that assumes a OV runaway condition is
possible.
Now, a secondary design goal is to contrive an
arrangement that is easy to add to existing
installations. Further, cost of acquisition
and ownership should be equal to or lower than any
offering by any other manufacturer.
This was never intended to be a trashing of the
IR alternator . . . but simply an admission that I
didn't have a way to integrate a demonstrably
fine product into classical system design philosophies
we've adopted over the years. Now that I have an
idea and a means coming to validate it, proof
of the system is in the repeatable experiment.
It will happen.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antenna location |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:28 AM 9/7/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Has anyone tried mounting a transponder antenna on the bottom of the rear
>fuselage? That location (about 2/3 of the length of the fuselage back)
>slopes upward on a Rebel but it is the location least blanked by large
>gear fairings, and metal radiator ducting. Unfortunately the worst signal
>would likely be forward to where the ground station I'm trying to reply to
>is likely to be during first contact. I am willing to mount the
>transponder behind me to keep the coax within the 8.8 feet max specified
>by Garmin.
>
>The other option seems to be on the roof. That is apparently not
>recommended and it would be near skylights and my head which I'm not
>comfortable with. I could get it the minimum recommended 3 feet away from
>the VHF antenna but the high wing might tend to blank ground stations to
>the side. I suspect that roof mounting would provide a better signal to
>other aircraft which is probably more important to me than a signal to
>ground so I guess I could put the antenna on the roof back near the
>tail. It seems silly to invest in a transponder though unless it is
>likely to perform well with both ATC and also traffic warning devices on
>other aircraft.
Any place on the bottom would be preferable to top mounted.
The aft fuselage location you cited would be fine.
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: | Re: AOPA battery article |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:31 AM 9/7/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cleone Markwell <cleone@rr1.net>
>
>Bob, What does OBAM mean?
"Owner Built and Maintained" as opposed to "Amateur Built" or "Experimental"
See archives at:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/search.html
Search the AeroElectric List for the phrase
"ABEA"
Bob . . .
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: | JPI remote mount..... |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
Does anyone have any experience with remote mounting a JPI
EDM 700 head separate from the electronics case. Poor "due
diligence" on my part shows that in the Bellanca Viking, pre '75,
there aren't a lot of options as to mounting locations....except
top, dead center where my altimeter now resides (welded in
panel bars and bracing...rats!). I have a three inch location for
the 3 inch display and can make up a couple of AMPMODU IV
dual row connectors to extend from the head to the electronics.
Question is.....how long could I rerasonably expect to make the
ribbon cables without problems. I know this is a loaded question
since one doesn't know the specifics of internal hardware
(suspect a serial interface to the head), so shooting in the
dark...JPI are adamant about not entertaining questions of this
sort. Period.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AOPA battery article |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
OBAM stands for Owner Built and Maintained, which the designation that Bob
prefers to call Experimental / Amateur Built aircraft.
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cleone Markwell" <cleone@rr1.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: AOPA battery article
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cleone Markwell <cleone@rr1.net>
>
> Bob, What does OBAM mean?
>
>
> At 09:29 PM 9/6/2006, you wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>
>>At 09:04 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
>>> III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>> >
>>> > At 12:44 AM 9/6/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on
>>> > >aircraft
>>> > >batteries.
>>> > >Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and
>>> > >later
>>> > >near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax
>>> 912 with a
>>> > >20Amp generater, was setting up
>>> > >for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box
>>> I got with
>>> > >my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
>>> >
>>> > I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
>>> > the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
>>> > it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
>>> > appreciate it.
>>> >
>>> > Bob . . .
>>>
>>>Listers,
>>> The relevent article is on page 133 of the September issue
>>>Charlie Kuss
>>
>> Dave sent me a copy. It's an innocuous piece and relatively
>> accurate. If I were to expand beyond where it stopped short
>> would be to explain the value in KNOWING what your endurance
>> loads are and KNOWING if your battery is likely to support
>> this load for whatever endurance YOU decide.
>>
>> There was one rather glaring error on the top of page
>> 138 where it's stated that a 1C rated battery is discharged
>> at 2C, it will deliver energy for 1/2 hour. Twice the
>> load is ALWAYS less than half the previous capacity. By
>> the same token, 0.1C load is always more than 10X the
>> 1C label capacity.
>>
>> Exemplar capacity vs. discharge rates are illustrated
>> in . . .
>>
>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/37AH_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
>>
>> and
>>
>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_Capcity_vs_Load.gif
>>
>> These graphs from manufacturer's data show that increasing
>> loads increases internal losses and that apparent
>> capacity drops as load increases.
>>
>> Our perpetual parents on the TC side have decided that
>> "30 minutes" is the magic number for endurance and
>> "85% of label capacity" is end of life for the battery.
>> This makes the certification effort easy and makes FBOs
>> task of selling batteries easier. This is an excellent example of
>> standardization that benefits the manufacturers and
>> regulators while limiting the owner's ability to tailor
>> realistic targets to match his/her own mission requirements.
>>
>> Neither one of the 30-minute/85% assertions suggest that
>> the owner/operator of an airplane might possess tools and
>> be willing to acquire skills needed increase personal endurance
>> target to say 1 hour. Or, take the time to monitor a battery
>> with an eye toward meeting the endurance level such that
>> 70% of label capacity is the TRUE end of life for the battery
>> in that particular airplane.
>>
>> Aren't you guys glad you don't have to salute those
>> flags? I still like "duration of fuel aboard" for
>> endurance and "pitch it when e-bus loads cannot be
>> supported for duration of fuel aboard." Of course,
>> on the OBAM side of the house we're free to select
>> and operate to our personal design goals.
>>
>>
>> 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 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AOPA battery article |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Bob,
Would you care to comment with regard to the article's assertion that
generators under 50 amps are adversely affected by the high capacity
RG35 batteries, in particular, as opposed to small alternators? Or
have you heard from the gentleman at Concorde?
I know alternators are a little more self limiting, but it seems like
the larger charging demand from the low resistance of that battery
would have adverse effects on both generators and alternators.
Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 10:31 AM 9/7/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cleone Markwell <cleone@rr1.net>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I don't often post to this fine list but do monitor it daily and have
learned much from Bob and others. The whole debate/interchange/scuffle between
gmcjet and Bob sometimes are fascinating, once in awhile educational and
sometimes just worthy of the delete key. However, at one point a few months ago,
I
had a need for advice which I posted here, and got useful info from Bob and
others. To my surprise however, George emailed me directly and spent lots of
time very graciously leading me by the hand , developing and sending schematics,
explanations, etc. He came across as very caring and helpful.
Just wanted you all to know there is another side to this guy, thas' all...
One amazing thing of note is the similarity in styles of argument and
outcomes between George and Paul Messinger.
My .02 as usual,
Jerry Cochran
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AOPA battery article |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 19:29, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> These graphs from manufacturer's data show that increasing
> loads increases internal losses and that apparent
> capacity drops as load increases.
Bob:
I am going to pick a nit here. At least twice I have seen you mention
losses in a battery in relationship to the change in battery capacity
with change in discharge rate. The interesting thing is, this
relationship occurs even when losses are not at issue, i.e. in batteries
intended for high-reliability stationary applications where they can
afford to construct massive plate structures where I*R losses are
virtually nonexistent. The relationship is still an exponential one and
was discovered by a gentleman named Peukert, hence it is named Peukert's
law.
The real reason has to do with the rate at which the electrolyte
diffuses into the active area of the plate and how the active portion of
the plate changes with time at different rates of discharge.
Good information about this can be found at
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peukert's_Law". The first external link is
to a PDF file with a good discussion (with pictures!) of the actual
chemical behavior of the plate of a battery and why Peukert's exponent
applies.
Yes, this is a small thing and probably not worth worrying about when
building aircraft electrical systems since you will always be
discharging the battery on you e-bus at the same rate every time. But
pedantic people (like me) care about such little things. :-)
Brian Lloyd
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | gmcjetpilot's legacy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Maybe for the point of humor you can all assume "gmcjetpilot" is a
former and now furloughed corporate pilot contracted by GMC before or
during the time they made so many foolish decisions. And now he is
bitter due to the cutbacks.
My delete key works great and is a source of confirming the system is
working well. Think of his as a possible Renault pilot with a French
attitude.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Christley
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 7:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: gmcjetpilot's legacy
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley
<echristley@nc.rr.com>
OK. The guy was/is a blowhard, with obviously way to much time on his
hands to be able to write long rambling dissertations with no point;
however....maybe there is a diamond or two amoungst all that
pig....stuff.
Bob wrote:
(1) He refused to acknowledge a modern alternator could experience a
gross OV failure in spite of demonstrations to the contrary. (2) He
brushed aside my oft stated design goals for providing seamless
integration of his favorite product (the IR alternator) into classic
aircraft electrical systems.
It irritated the snot out of me that he would never simply state an
alternative set of design goals. He did expound on the benefits that an
IVR has...temp compensation, slow start, etc. I think those are
desirable, but not if they don't fit in with the rest of the design
goals. Bob has clearly and succinctly stated that the design goal is
that the pilot have complete control of the charging system. It seems
to me that simply modifying one word would open the door for IVR systems
and maintain or increase the current level of safety. Do we really need
'complete' control, or will 'ultimate' control suffice? That is, we
allow the IVR to work it's magic was the IVR designers have seen fit to
have the magic performed, but the pilot has "all rights reserved".
(S)he can hit the kill switch and take it out of the system at any time.
Yes that might break the alternator, but isn't it being taken offline
because it's already broke?
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OV Module additional requirement |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" <bob@flyboybob.com>
OK 'Lectron heads, let me know, did question just got dropped in the midst
of all the George-bantor, or is it too dumb to get an answer?
The questions:
1. can the OVM be modified to allow for three inputs: sense, trip, and
ground? (I don't want to crowbar the same place that I want to measure the
voltage.)
2. Can one OVM detect and react to an OV event fast enough to trip the
correct alternator in a two alternator/OVM installation?
The deatils are in the attached message.
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA
91% done only 65% to go!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob
Lee
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 1:37 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: OV Module additional requirement
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" <bob@flyboybob.com>
I upgraded my engine from mag to electronic ignition and carb to fuel
injection. This has increased the electrical demand far in excess of the 20
amp alternator that is supplied with my engine. I am using Z13-20 with a 40
amp alternator installed in the mag drive of the engine.
My load analysis shows 59 amps with everything on (including pitot heat).
Therefore I would like to be able to run both alternators together as my
standard operation. Now lets make the assumption that one of the
alternators has an OV event. Using the existing Crowbar OVM revE as a base
line I would like to know if it is possible to remove the wire between pinA
of the Gate S6025L, and add an additional output from the OVM to be the trip
for the alternator field. The existing positive connection of the OVM would
be connected to the alternator B+ as a sense lead.
I have a schematic of this idea at
http://flyboybob.com/images/kr2/n52bl/electric%20and%20instrument/ov001-rev2
-4.jpg
to illistrate my question.
The power distribution has the two alternators each with a separate OVM
comming together at the battery contactor on opposite sides which puts the
battery between B+ power feeds of the two alternators.
That's the background, now the question:
Would an OVMs be able to sence the offending high voltage alternator and
only trip that one alternator off line? Or would the battery not be able to
clamp the OV event long enough to prevent the OVM on the good alternator
from tripping too?
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA
91% done only 65% to go!
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:43 PM 9/7/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>I don't often post to this fine list but do monitor it daily and have
>learned much from Bob and others. The whole debate/interchange/scuffle
>between gmcjet and Bob sometimes are fascinating, once in awhile
>educational and sometimes just worthy of the delete key. However, at one
>point a few months ago, I had a need for advice which I posted here, and
>got useful info from Bob and others. To my surprise however, George
>emailed me directly and spent lots of time very graciously leading me by
>the hand , developing and sending schematics, explanations, etc. He came
>across as very caring and helpful.
>
>Just wanted you all to know there is another side to this guy, thas' all...
>
>One amazing thing of note is the similarity in styles of argument and
>outcomes between George and Paul Messinger.
Thank you for sharing this Jerry. I appreciate
the existence of some non-negative data in what has
been mostly troubling and tiresome experience . . .
Bob . . .
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: gmcjetpilot's legacy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
I believe his screen name derives from his name, rumored to be G.
McQueen, and I can vouch for his willingness to devote lots of time to
private off-list mentoring and his usefulness as a source for
alternator and regulator part numbers. Not all his posts are caustic,
but too many are.
On 9/7/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> Maybe for the point of humor you can all assume "gmcjetpilot" is a
> former and now furloughed corporate pilot contracted by GMC before or
> during the time they made so many foolish decisions. And now he is
> bitter due to the cutbacks.
>
> My delete key works great and is a source of confirming the system is
> working well. Think of his as a possible Renault pilot with a French
> attitude.
>
> John Cox
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Ernest Christley
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 7:12 AM
> To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: gmcjetpilot's legacy
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> OK. The guy was/is a blowhard, with obviously way to much time on his
> hands to be able to write long rambling dissertations with no point;
> however....maybe there is a diamond or two amoungst all that
> pig....stuff.
>
> Bob wrote:
> (1) He refused to acknowledge a modern alternator could experience a
> gross OV failure in spite of demonstrations to the contrary. (2) He
> brushed aside my oft stated design goals for providing seamless
> integration of his favorite product (the IR alternator) into classic
> aircraft electrical systems.
>
> It irritated the snot out of me that he would never simply state an
> alternative set of design goals. He did expound on the benefits that an
> IVR has...temp compensation, slow start, etc. I think those are
> desirable, but not if they don't fit in with the rest of the design
> goals. Bob has clearly and succinctly stated that the design goal is
> that the pilot have complete control of the charging system. It seems
> to me that simply modifying one word would open the door for IVR systems
> and maintain or increase the current level of safety. Do we really need
> 'complete' control, or will 'ultimate' control suffice? That is, we
> allow the IVR to work it's magic was the IVR designers have seen fit to
> have the magic performed, but the pilot has "all rights reserved".
> (S)he can hit the kill switch and take it out of the system at any time.
> Yes that might break the alternator, but isn't it being taken offline
> because it's already broke?
>
>
> --
> ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
> ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
> o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AOPA battery article |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Owner Built and Maintained. Invented while searching for a politically
correct term for homebuilt.
David M.
Cleone Markwell wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cleone Markwell <cleone@rr1.net>
>
> Bob, What does OBAM mean?
>
>
> At 09:29 PM 9/6/2006, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>
>> At 09:04 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>>
<<<snip>>>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Argumentative people and personal attacks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
People are sometimes unaware of how easy it is to become drawn into
personal attacks by the anonymous nature of the net. Those who have
been around for a long time since the day of BBSes and Compuserve and
such will probably agree they have deleted MANY of their own posts
prior to hitting the Send key. Sometimes it's better to vent to
yourself, and then delete before sending. The emoticons were
invented to try to replace the missing body language and facial
expressions. But calling somebody a name and then following it with
a smiley face doesn't do the trick.
If it's something you would not say to a person's face at an EAA
meeting, why say it on the net where your words will be enshrined
forever and searchable in archives for decades to come? There's no
reason for name-calling. Don't forget, there IS such a thing as
private e-mail if you feel you really need to argue with someone.
But, this IS Bob's "classroom". If you don't agree with Bob after a
few exchanges that will enlighten the group, you can always go off
and do it your way. Just please come back and report to us how well
it worked, so we can all be better informed by your first-hand
experience. Experience trumps theory in my book. Create your own
classroom if you have better ideas.
I, too, have had very civil discussions with George off-list and wish
we could all just stick to emotion-free technical discussions and to
the agreement to occasionally just disagree. I've never deleted
anything George or Paul have said without reading it, but have
searched within their writings for any speck of information that I
might be able to learn from. As long as what someone writes has good
data in it, I'll keep reading it. But attacks get boring.
(This was way too long. I should delete it. Nah, I'm allowed one mistake.)
Dave Morris
N6030X
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I believe that a person's positive activities can't always make up for
their negative ones.. One aw-shucks can wipe out a whole bunch of
attaboys. This is so because it's almost always much easier to poison a
good process than it is to recover one that's already tainted.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 12:43 PM 9/7/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>I don't often post to this fine list but do monitor it daily and have
>>learned much from Bob and others. The whole debate/interchange/scuffle
>>between gmcjet and Bob sometimes are fascinating, once in awhile
>>educational and sometimes just worthy of the delete key. However, at one
>>point a few months ago, I had a need for advice which I posted here, and
>>got useful info from Bob and others. To my surprise however, George
>>emailed me directly and spent lots of time very graciously leading me by
>>the hand , developing and sending schematics, explanations, etc. He came
>>across as very caring and helpful.
>>
>>Just wanted you all to know there is another side to this guy, thas'
>> all...
>>
>>One amazing thing of note is the similarity in styles of argument and
>>outcomes between George and Paul Messinger.
>
> Thank you for sharing this Jerry. I appreciate
> the existence of some non-negative data in what has
> been mostly troubling and tiresome experience . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 12:43 PM 9/7/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >I don't often post to this fine list but do monitor it daily and have
> >learned much from Bob and others. The whole debate/interchange/scuffle
> >between gmcjet and Bob sometimes are fascinating, once in awhile
> >educational and sometimes just worthy of the delete key. However, at one
> >point a few months ago, I had a need for advice which I posted here, and
> >got useful info from Bob and others. To my surprise however, George
> >emailed me directly and spent lots of time very graciously leading me by
> >the hand , developing and sending schematics, explanations, etc. He came
> >across as very caring and helpful.
> >
> >Just wanted you all to know there is another side to this guy, thas' all...
> >
> >One amazing thing of note is the similarity in styles of argument and
> >outcomes between George and Paul Messinger.
>
> Thank you for sharing this Jerry. I appreciate
> the existence of some non-negative data in what has
> been mostly troubling and tiresome experience . . .
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
I have found George to be very helpful as well. On subjects electrical and otherwise.
He has made great efforts to educate me to the whys and hows of various
aviation related items. He recently outlined for me why certain brands of aircraft
parts are superior to other brands. All done in a cheerful matter.
Charlie Kuss
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AOPA battery article |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Picking nits here... Maybe it's just me, but I think "politically
correct" has taken on a rather negative connotation.
I believe "OBAM," in some ways, more accurately reflects our aircraft.
Very often (usually), the airplanes we build and operate are direct copies
of other aircraft. They are built for entertainment and transportation.
Little aerodynamic study or scientific endeavor is accomplished (and
that's okay). Experimentation is minimal.
"OBAM," as you say, also may put a better spin on things with the
uninformed public than do other terms that describe what we are doing...
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>
> Owner Built and Maintained. Invented while searching for a politically
> correct term for homebuilt.
>
> David M.
>
>
> Cleone Markwell wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cleone Markwell
>> <cleone@rr1.net>
>>
>> Bob, What does OBAM mean?
>>
>>
>>
>> At 09:29 PM 9/6/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>>
>>> At 09:04 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>>>
> <<<snip>>>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jerry,
Without a doubt, George has redeeming attributes, though he does his
best to hide them. There are only two problems with his postings--the
message and the messinger...or is that Messinger? I've noticed the same
similarity between George and Paul (though I was assured off line one
time, by Joe Smith, that they were two different persons). Perhaps its
just one of those 'kindred soul things', but still makes me
wonder--email addresses and names are cheap.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
Jerry Cochran wrote...
I don't often post to this fine list but do monitor it daily and have
learned much from Bob and others. The whole debate/interchange/scuffle
between gmcjet and Bob sometimes are fascinating, once in awhile
educational and sometimes just worthy of the delete key. However, at one
point a few months ago, I had a need for advice which I posted here, and
got useful info from Bob and others. To my surprise however, George
emailed me directly and spent lots of time very graciously leading me by
the hand , developing and sending schematics, explanations, etc. He came
across as very caring and helpful.
Just wanted you all to know there is another side to this guy, thas'
all...
One amazing thing of note is the similarity in styles of argument and
outcomes between George and Paul Messinger.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <sean@stephensville.com>
chaztuna@adelphia.net wrote:
>
> Bob,
> I have found George to be very helpful as well. On subjects electrical and otherwise.
He has made great efforts to educate me to the whys and hows of various
aviation related items. He recently outlined for me why certain brands of
aircraft parts are superior to other brands. All done in a cheerful matter.
> Charlie Kuss
>
I feel like the suckerfish swimming along the bottom of the creek that
spots a piece of cheese on the end of a string, having no idea that
cheese on the end of a string has no business being in a creek.
But I'll bite...
Why are certain brands of aircraft parts superior to other brands? Care
to elaborate?
-Sean
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Geeze, if someone's posting piss you off, just hit the delete key. I'm
sure
there's lots of readers who hit the delete key on mine.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck
Jensen
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
Jerry,
Without a doubt, George has redeeming attributes, though he does his
best to
hide them. There are only two problems with his postings--the message
and
the messinger...or is that Messinger? I've noticed the same similarity
between George and Paul (though I was assured off line one time, by Joe
Smith, that they were two different persons). Perhaps its just one of
those
'kindred soul things', but still makes me wonder--email addresses and
names
are cheap.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
Jerry Cochran wrote...
I don't often post to this fine list but do monitor it daily and have
learned much from Bob and others. The whole debate/interchange/scuffle
between gmcjet and Bob sometimes are fascinating, once in awhile
educational
and sometimes just worthy of the delete key. However, at one point a few
months ago, I had a need for advice which I posted here, and got useful
info
from Bob and others. To my surprise however, George emailed me directly
and
spent lots of time very graciously leading me by the hand , developing
and
sending schematics, explanations, etc. He came across as very caring and
helpful.
Just wanted you all to know there is another side to this guy, thas'
all...
One amazing thing of note is the similarity in styles of argument and
outcomes between George and Paul Messinger.
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dual radio interference |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu@comcast.net>
sjhdcl(at)kingston.net wrote:
> When I select both radio to listen to and then transmit on one, the transmission
is very garbled for me. ATC reads me loud and clear but I can barely make
out what I'm saying. Happens with both radios.
How close are the 2 freqs on COM 1 and 2 when this phenomenon occurs? I couldnt
duplicate the phenomenon using two VHF handhelds, unless the freqs were really
close together. That's also like the two devices are within inches of each
other, not the case of an airplane antenna installation.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60253#60253
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
I don't want to beat this thing to death but I've also had several
off-line email exchanges with George that have been very helpful and
he's been very gracious with his time in helping me out. I'm not
arguing with the will of the group or Bob here, just wanting people to
realise that he's not all that bad .....
Allan
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Single Display EFIS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
Listers
Does anybody have any experience flying with a single display EFIS, with
graphical engine monitor? Can you please share your impressions, mainly by
the fact to have to change from the PFD to the Engine page because of the
single screen.
Since I will have backup analog instruments for airspeed, altitude and
attitude, I'm thinking in saving some money not buying the second EFIS
display unit, hence need to know if anybody already flying thinks it is
perfectly doable.
TIA
Carlos
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Single Display EFIS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
The Op Tech EFIS screen is designed so that you have 4 engine gauges of
your choice displayed on the same screen as the HSI and the Moving map,
minimizing/eliminating the need to switch screens for the vast majority
of the instances.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse/Finish/Panel
http://deemsrv10.com/
Carlos Trigo wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo"
> <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
>
> Listers
>
> Does anybody have any experience flying with a single display EFIS,
> with graphical engine monitor? Can you please share your impressions,
> mainly by the fact to have to change from the PFD to the Engine page
> because of the single screen.
> Since I will have backup analog instruments for airspeed, altitude and
> attitude, I'm thinking in saving some money not buying the second EFIS
> display unit, hence need to know if anybody already flying thinks it
> is perfectly doable.
>
> TIA
> Carlos
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | gmcjetpilot's legacy |
Many have said they have back line conversations with George McClean and
he has been helpful. However, how do you know if his information is
valid? I reiterate, who is this guy?
If you have followed his threads on the various lists he displays a
knowledge of ALL aspects of aviation, kit building, fiberglass work,
painting, camp stoves. If someone disagrees with him he will belabor the
point to death. He knows everything. I have never seen him post a
question. On Doug's Forums he is often the last one to post on a given
subject. He is a thread killer. He is beligerent, argumentative and
contrary to most opinions that are not parallel to his. This type of
activity is not needed.
This may appear personal and in part it is. If you saw the LONG personal
attack he sent me you'd understand. Notice he doesn't post any real
information but at least has posted he is from the Raliegh NC "area." I
asked him why he doesn't post who he is and he said, "there are stalkers
out there." Sounds pretty paranoid to me.
For those of you who have said he has been helpful, use caution. We
don't know who he is. Does anyone actually know him?
With this list we have a known expert in the field, with Bob Nuckols.
I'm sticking with his advice. My concern is some new and unsuspecting
person following George's advice only to find he is full of sh*t.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Single Display EFIS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
So does the AFS-3400/3500. Well, actually more than 4, you get all the
essential engine instruments and then a few. Worth a check out if you are
going to go single screen. Do consider the single point of failure
however...
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Single Display EFIS
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis
--> <deemsdavis@cox.net>
The Op Tech EFIS screen is designed so that you have 4 engine gauges of your
choice displayed on the same screen as the HSI and the Moving map,
minimizing/eliminating the need to switch screens for the vast majority of
the instances.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse/Finish/Panel
http://deemsrv10.com/
Carlos Trigo wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo"
> <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
>
> Listers
>
> Does anybody have any experience flying with a single display EFIS,
> with graphical engine monitor? Can you please share your impressions,
> mainly by the fact to have to change from the PFD to the Engine page
> because of the single screen.
> Since I will have backup analog instruments for airspeed, altitude and
> attitude, I'm thinking in saving some money not buying the second EFIS
> display unit, hence need to know if anybody already flying thinks it
> is perfectly doable.
>
> TIA
> Carlos
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OV Module additional requirement |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hi Bob Lee
With paralleled alternators you probably can't really have an
overvoltage due to a single failure with such a heavilly loaded system.
If either alternator running full on at 100% output would still not
exceed the system load, then the second alternator would just reduce its
output (although it might well oscillate). I actually observed something
similar today. After a night flight I had inadvertantly left a fuel pump
on that drained one battery. It seemed like an opportunity to experiment
a bit with my Z-14 architecture so I ran the engine. Bad idea I guess as
the 20amp PM alternator now seems to want to run full on. However in the
short term it does not come close to tripping the OVP as long as the
batteries are paralleled. With 20 amps or more load the voltage stays
completely normal.
Back to your situation - even with small loads I would not expect an OVM
to trip only the problem alternator if two alternators are paralleled
and one goes to max output. Two regulators or two OVMs will always have
slightly different control voltages. There is some discussion on the
difficulties of paralleling alternators in the archives. You might want
to consider a larger main alternator unless it is only temporary loads
like landing lights that is bringing you up to 59 amps. Certainly you
can build an OVM with a separate sense wire but I haven't looked at your
proposed method.
Ken
Bob Lee wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" <bob@flyboybob.com>
>
>OK 'Lectron heads, let me know, did question just got dropped in the midst
>of all the George-bantor, or is it too dumb to get an answer?
>
>The questions:
>
>1. can the OVM be modified to allow for three inputs: sense, trip, and
>ground? (I don't want to crowbar the same place that I want to measure the
>voltage.)
>
>2. Can one OVM detect and react to an OV event fast enough to trip the
>correct alternator in a two alternator/OVM installation?
>
>The deatils are in the attached message.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bob Lee
>N52BL KR2
>Suwanee, GA
>91% done only 65% to go!
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob
>Lee
>Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 1:37 PM
>To: Aeroelectric (E-mail)
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: OV Module additional requirement
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" <bob@flyboybob.com>
>
>I upgraded my engine from mag to electronic ignition and carb to fuel
>injection. This has increased the electrical demand far in excess of the 20
>amp alternator that is supplied with my engine. I am using Z13-20 with a 40
>amp alternator installed in the mag drive of the engine.
>
>My load analysis shows 59 amps with everything on (including pitot heat).
>Therefore I would like to be able to run both alternators together as my
>standard operation. Now lets make the assumption that one of the
>alternators has an OV event. Using the existing Crowbar OVM revE as a base
>line I would like to know if it is possible to remove the wire between pinA
>of the Gate S6025L, and add an additional output from the OVM to be the trip
>for the alternator field. The existing positive connection of the OVM would
>be connected to the alternator B+ as a sense lead.
>
>I have a schematic of this idea at
>http://flyboybob.com/images/kr2/n52bl/electric%20and%20instrument/ov001-rev2
>-4.jpg
> to illistrate my question.
>
>The power distribution has the two alternators each with a separate OVM
>comming together at the battery contactor on opposite sides which puts the
>battery between B+ power feeds of the two alternators.
>
>That's the background, now the question:
>
>Would an OVMs be able to sence the offending high voltage alternator and
>only trip that one alternator off line? Or would the battery not be able to
>clamp the OV event long enough to prevent the OVM on the good alternator
>from tripping too?
>
>Regards,
>
>Bob Lee
>N52BL KR2
>Suwanee, GA
>91% done only 65% to go!
>
>
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! --
|