Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:18 AM - Re: Glowing Warning Lights (MikeEasley@aol.com)
2. 05:52 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Gary Casey)
3. 06:17 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (gordon or marge)
4. 06:17 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Bill Denton)
5. 06:47 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Dave N6030X)
6. 07:09 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (OldBob Siegfried)
7. 07:31 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
8. 09:39 AM - Re: What I learned today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
9. 10:11 AM - Re: What I learned today (Chuck Jensen)
10. 10:21 AM - Radio shields (Dennis Jones)
11. 01:00 PM - Re: What I learned today (Doug Windhorn)
12. 01:47 PM - Re: What I learned today (Dj Merrill)
13. 02:16 PM - Re: Radio shields (Brian Lloyd)
14. 04:09 PM - Re: Glowing Warning Lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 04:21 PM - Re: What I learned today (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 04:22 PM - Re: Radio shields (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 05:02 PM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Kevin Horton)
18. 06:11 PM - Transponders (Dennis Jones)
19. 06:35 PM - (Dennis Jones)
20. 07:10 PM - Replacement led lights (B Tomm)
21. 07:20 PM - Re: Transponders (William Gill)
22. 07:21 PM - Re: Re: John Deere PM alternator regulator (Ken)
23. 07:21 PM - Re: alternator vs. second battery (Tony Gibson)
24. 07:44 PM - Re: Transponders (Dennis Jones)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glowing Warning Lights |
After studying the schematic (I'm a little slow with this stuff), it appears
that the resistors can be installed at the regulator, one across terminals 3
and 5, and the other in series from the wire running from terminal 5 to the
LED. I'm assuming some heat will be generated by the resistors and
installing them at the regular would work better for me with cooling.
One other question, why not use a relay? I understand the added complexity
issue, but that would give you a dark LED without sacrificing any brightness
when it's illuminated. Right? Any part number recommendations would be
appreciated.
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: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Yes, there are still a number of failure modes that could create a
problem, even with two independent fuel valves. In the case
mentioned below, the low tank valve breaks and won't shut off. In
that case the (presumably fuller) tank could be turned on, feeding
fuel from both tanks and the plane landed at the earliest
convenience. The fuller tank would probably back-feed into the lower
tank, extending the range compared to just feeding off the lowest
tank, depending on the level of fuel in the fuller tank. In any
event one has to assume there is only the fuel left in the lowest
tank. If the valve for the "new" tank failed to open (broke in the
closed position) the response is simple - land before the low tank
goes empty. Not a perfect condition, but there are still options
available that might not be available with a single valve. If a
single valve broke in the "low" tank position fuel in the fuller tank
is completely unavailable. If it sticks and breaks between tanks
(what I think is a more likely failure) neither tank is available and
the engine quits right away. The normal operating procedure with two
valves is to open the valve for the new tank, confirming that it
actually moved, and then shutting off the valve from the old tank.
Never shut the old one off before turning the new one on. Also, I
know that there have been some postings advocating, or at least
acknowledging, running a tank dry as a routine operating mode. I
suppose if there were more than two tanks this isn't so bad, but with
only two tanks doing that gives up one of the redundancies in the
system - two independent sources of fuel. I personally don't like
the idea of running a tank dry. My own standard is to never run
either tank lower than what is required to get to the nearest
airport. FWIW.
Gary Casey
Lancair ES
On Sep 12, 2006, at 11:55 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> You are worried about fuel valve handles breaking. With your design,
> what happens if you have run one tank down low, want to switch to the
> other tank, and the valve handle on the tank that is feeding breaks
> so you can't close that valve? Won't the engine quit once that tank
> is empty and the engine starts sucking air? How is this better than
> a valve handle failure with the normal design?
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
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: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Casey
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
I might have missed some of the discussion, but the comment below seems
to
be directed at the tank valving method - specifically whether to use two
separate fuel valves or one, with the recommendation to run all the fuel
through one valve. I chose to put two valves on mine for the following
reasons:
1. A single valve is a single point of failure - what if the handle
breaks
off or the valve sticks? The most likely time for that to happen is
when
one port is being closed off before the other opens (apparently most or
all
fuel selectors go to "off" between right and left positions). If it
jams in
this position all fuel is shut off. My on-off valves are completely
independent and controlled from their own lever and cable. If one jams
either open or shut the other is unaffected.
2. The fuel can be shut off at the tank, not in the middle of the
cockpit.
When both valves are shut off no fuel can enter the cockpit, which would
be
reassuring in case of an off-airport landing.
3. It reduces the number of fuel fittings and therefore the number of
potential leak paths, especially in the cockpit.
4. It allows the backup electric pump to be placed at the lowest point
in
the fuel system which should provide the best protection against vapor
lock.
5. When switching tanks the new tank can be turned on before the old
tank
is shut off, guaranteeing a continuous flow of fuel.
6. A trivial one: If the plane is landed with an unbalanced fuel load,
both valves can be left on, equalizing the fuel load before the next
flight.
The disadvantage is that both valves could be inadvertently turned on,
which
on a low-wing plane means that if one tank is run dry in that condition
the
engine could draw air. In that case one fuel gage would read empty and
changing the fuel valve positions (shutting off the empty tank) would
correct the condition. Interestingly, my DAR was skeptical about the
arrangement, but was satisfied by the placement of a placard "continuous
operation on both tanks prohibited." Conversely, my test pilot like the
arrangement, saying that for at least the first half tank the engine
could
be operated on both, keeping the fuel load balanced (well, anyone that
has
had a Cardinal would not be convinced that would happen). Why do
high-wing
planes often have a "both" position? Probably because the fuel is
joined
together at the bottom of the plane, several feet below the tanks. One
tank
would have to run dry with the other pulling enough vacuum to overcome
maybe
4 feet of head pressure - very unlikely. A low wing plane has nowhere
to
connect the tanks together except essentially even with the bottom of
the
tanks. When one runs dry air would immediately enter the engine.
Just my nickel's worth (inflation, you know)
Gary Casey
Gary: With regard to your point 1); Anything is posssible but a Cessna
valve (large single engine) uses a cam to lift check balls from their
seats.
Unlikely to seize. Point 2); good. Point 3); I count the same number
of
fittings. Point 4); Not sure. My -4 pump is not at the low point and
there has been no trouble. My -8 will have a Weldon pump which has good
suction capabilities. Point 5); The plane would have to be level and
such
an act would obscure your knowledge of fuel used from each tank. I
prefer
to know that if, for example, if I've used an hour of fuel from a tank
that
it stays that way. As to operating on both for the initial part of the
flight, my experience with the -4 is that when operating in a "both"
position one tank will deliver fuel to the other and if it becomes full
the
surplus goes overboard. At this point we reallly don't know our fuel
state.
The only airplane I've flown with 2 shutoff valves is a Fairchild 24 and
we
did not fly with both valves open although I never experimented with
both on
so don't really know what implications there might be.
These are good discussions about non trivial matters. A look at the
early
Venture fuel system is enough to give you the willies.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
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: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Just an observation...
While you're sitting there with your head down troubleshooting valves and
breaking the handles off and flipping switches until they fall out of the
panel, you may well end up sticking your airplane in the ground.
I know that it is sometimes necessary to have multiple tanks, valves, and
pumps to manage complex fuel systems. But some of what I've been reading on
this thread sounds like it's coming from graduates of the Rube Goldberg
School of Engineering...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gary Casey
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
Yes, there are still a number of failure modes that could create a problem,
even with two independent fuel valves. In the case mentioned below, the low
tank valve breaks and won't shut off. In that case the (presumably fuller)
tank could be turned on, feeding fuel from both tanks and the plane landed
at the earliest convenience. The fuller tank would probably back-feed into
the lower tank, extending the range compared to just feeding off the lowest
tank, depending on the level of fuel in the fuller tank. In any event one
has to assume there is only the fuel left in the lowest tank. If the valve
for the "new" tank failed to open (broke in the closed position) the
response is simple - land before the low tank goes empty. Not a perfect
condition, but there are still options available that might not be available
with a single valve. If a single valve broke in the "low" tank position
fuel in the fuller tank is completely unavailable. If it sticks and breaks
between tanks (what I think is a more likely failure) neither tank is
available and the engine quits right away. The normal operating procedure
with two valves is to open the valve for the new tank, confirming that it
actually moved, and then shutting off the valve from the old tank. Never
shut the old one off before turning the new one on. Also, I know that there
have been some postings advocating, or at least acknowledging, running a
tank dry as a routine operating mode. I suppose if there were more than two
tanks this isn't so bad, but with only two tanks doing that gives up one of
the redundancies in the system - two independent sources of fuel. I
personally don't like the idea of running a tank dry. My own standard is to
never run either tank lower than what is required to get to the nearest
airport. FWIW.
Gary Casey
Lancair ES
On Sep 12, 2006, at 11:55 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
You are worried about fuel valve handles breaking. With your design,
what happens if you have run one tank down low, want to switch to the
other tank, and the valve handle on the tank that is feeding breaks
so you can't close that valve? Won't the engine quit once that tank
is empty and the engine starts sucking air? How is this better than
a valve handle failure with the normal design?
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out there.
In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm
a software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit
workload part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches
and bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that
there was a single point of failure that was getting more and more
overloaded with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures
of the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not
knowing how much fuel is in the tank, forgetting to switch tanks,
taking off without adequate fuel, etc. etc. I don't remember seeing
too many "the fuel selector handle broke off between tanks". The
oldest airplanes still flying anywhere (the survivors of all our
human failures) have the simplest systems. Take a look at how they did things.
My advice, which could be worth exactly as much as you're paying for
it is this: build it light, build it high quality, and build it
simple enough that you can intuitively grasp it without schematic
diagrams and lengthy troubleshooting charts while handling an
inflight emergency. If you have requirements such as "don't ever
turn off this tank before turning on that tank", I think you're
starting to set yourself up for failure. Think Gravity Feed from a
header tank wherever possible. Instead of buying two redundant
valves and plumbing, buy one high quality valve and replace it every
2 years just for the helluvit. What's that gonna cost you? A
hundred bucks? How much weight will you save, and how much cockpit workload?
When you're doing your failure mode analysis, include a list of all
of the things the pilot has an opportunity to do wrong. We try to do
this in software development, and it's a useful exercise before you
get carried away anticipating equipment failures that are just never
going to occur. When designing software, we no longer worry about
whether there will be a bit error on the memory board, or whether the
disk drive will crash a track. But we spend a lot of time worrying
about whether the user will forget to enter a value or will enter the
wrong value. If the user (pilot) CAN do anything wrong, he
WILL. Try applying that to your aircraft design and see if you come
up with some interesting scenarios you had not thought of before.
Dave Morris
1960 Mooney M20A
Manual gear retract
3 fuel tanks - single valve
No fuel system failures in 46 years (knock on wood wing)
At 07:51 AM 9/13/2006, you wrote:
>Yes, there are still a number of failure modes that could create a
>problem, even with two independent fuel valves. In the case
>mentioned below, the low tank valve breaks and won't shut off. In
>that case the (presumably fuller) tank could be turned on, feeding
>fuel from both tanks and the plane landed at the earliest
>convenience. The fuller tank would probably back-feed into the
>lower tank, extending the range compared to just feeding off the
>lowest tank, depending on the level of fuel in the fuller tank. In
>any event one has to assume there is only the fuel left in the
>lowest tank. If the valve for the "new" tank failed to open (broke
>in the closed position) the response is simple - land before the low
>tank goes empty. Not a perfect condition, but there are still
>options available that might not be available with a single
>valve. If a single valve broke in the "low" tank position fuel in
>the fuller tank is completely unavailable. If it sticks and breaks
>between tanks (what I think is a more likely failure) neither tank
>is available and the engine quits right away. The normal operating
>procedure with two valves is to open the valve for the new tank,
>confirming that it actually moved, and then shutting off the valve
>from the old tank. Never shut the old one off before turning the
>new one on. Also, I know that there have been some postings
>advocating, or at least acknowledging, running a tank dry as a
>routine operating mode. I suppose if there were more than two tanks
>this isn't so bad, but with only two tanks doing that gives up one
>of the redundancies in the system - two independent sources of
>fuel. I personally don't like the idea of running a tank dry. My
>own standard is to never run either tank lower than what is required
>to get to the nearest airport. FWIW.
>
>Gary Casey
>Lancair ES
>On Sep 12, 2006, at 11:55 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You are worried about fuel valve handles breaking. With your design,
>>
>>what happens if you have run one tank down low, want to switch to the
>>
>>other tank, and the valve handle on the tank that is feeding breaks
>>
>>so you can't close that valve? Won't the engine quit once that tank
>>
>>is empty and the engine starts sucking air? How is this better than
>>
>>a valve handle failure with the normal design?
>>
>>
>>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>>
>>Ottawa, Canada
>
>
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: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning Dave,
I recognize that this message is really a "Me Too"
message and that such messages are discouraged by the
list administrator, but I can't help myself!
You have mashed that nail very squarely.
I am convinced that any system failure is much likely
to be one induced by "yours truly" rather than by any
failure of the mechanism of my flying machine.
KISS
Do Not Archive.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove Illinois
LL22
--- Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> I have a little different point of view that I'd
> like to just throw out there.
>
> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a
> long time by a
> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems
> everywhere. I'm
> a software guy, so I love complicated,
> microprocessor-controlled
> everythingies. But when I started working through
> the cockpit
> workload part of dealing with multiple independent
> pumps and switches
> and bypasses for everything and backup this and
> that, I realized that
> there was a single point of failure that was getting
> more and more
> overloaded with every new complexity: the pilot
> (me).
>
> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are
> many more failures
> of the human to throw the switch than of the switch
> breaking. Fuel
> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the
> tank, not
> knowing how much fuel is in the tank, forgetting to
> switch tanks,
> taking off without adequate fuel, etc. etc. I don't
> remember seeing
> too many "the fuel selector handle broke off between
> tanks". The
> oldest airplanes still flying anywhere (the
> survivors of all our
> human failures) have the simplest systems. Take a
> look at how they did things.
>
> My advice, which could be worth exactly as much as
> you're paying for
> it is this: build it light, build it high quality,
> and build it
> simple enough that you can intuitively grasp it
> without schematic
> diagrams and lengthy troubleshooting charts while
> handling an
> inflight emergency. If you have requirements such
> as "don't ever
> turn off this tank before turning on that tank", I
> think you're
> starting to set yourself up for failure. Think
> Gravity Feed from a
> header tank wherever possible. Instead of buying
> two redundant
> valves and plumbing, buy one high quality valve and
> replace it every
> 2 years just for the helluvit. What's that gonna
> cost you? A
> hundred bucks? How much weight will you save, and
> how much cockpit workload?
>
> When you're doing your failure mode analysis,
> include a list of all
> of the things the pilot has an opportunity to do
> wrong. We try to do
> this in software development, and it's a useful
> exercise before you
> get carried away anticipating equipment failures
> that are just never
> going to occur. When designing software, we no
> longer worry about
> whether there will be a bit error on the memory
> board, or whether the
> disk drive will crash a track. But we spend a lot
> of time worrying
> about whether the user will forget to enter a value
> or will enter the
> wrong value. If the user (pilot) CAN do anything
> wrong, he
> WILL. Try applying that to your aircraft design and
> see if you come
> up with some interesting scenarios you had not
> thought of before.
>
> Dave Morris
> 1960 Mooney M20A
> Manual gear retract
> 3 fuel tanks - single valve
> No fuel system failures in 46 years (knock on wood
> wing)
>
>
> At 07:51 AM 9/13/2006, you wrote:
> >Yes, there are still a number of failure modes that
> could create a
> >problem, even with two independent fuel valves. In
> the case
> >mentioned below, the low tank valve breaks and
> won't shut off. In
> >that case the (presumably fuller) tank could be
> turned on, feeding
> >fuel from both tanks and the plane landed at the
> earliest
> >convenience. The fuller tank would probably
> back-feed into the
> >lower tank, extending the range compared to just
> feeding off the
> >lowest tank, depending on the level of fuel in the
> fuller tank. In
> >any event one has to assume there is only the fuel
> left in the
> >lowest tank. If the valve for the "new" tank
> failed to open (broke
> >in the closed position) the response is simple -
> land before the low
> >tank goes empty. Not a perfect condition, but
> there are still
> >options available that might not be available with
> a single
> >valve. If a single valve broke in the "low" tank
> position fuel in
> >the fuller tank is completely unavailable. If it
> sticks and breaks
> >between tanks (what I think is a more likely
> failure) neither tank
> >is available and the engine quits right away. The
> normal operating
> >procedure with two valves is to open the valve for
> the new tank,
> >confirming that it actually moved, and then
> shutting off the valve
> >from the old tank. Never shut the old one off
> before turning the
> >new one on. Also, I know that there have been some
> postings
> >advocating, or at least acknowledging, running a
> tank dry as a
> >routine operating mode. I suppose if there were
> more than two tanks
> >this isn't so bad, but with only two tanks doing
> that gives up one
> >of the redundancies in the system - two independent
> sources of
> >fuel. I personally don't like the idea of running
> a tank dry. My
> >own standard is to never run either tank lower than
> what is required
> >to get to the nearest airport. FWIW.
> >
> >Gary Casey
> >Lancair ES
> >On Sep 12, 2006, at 11:55 PM, AeroElectric-List
> Digest Server wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>You are worried about fuel valve handles breaking.
> With your design,
> >>
> >>what happens if you have run one tank down low,
> want to switch to the
> >>
> >>other tank, and the valve handle on the tank that
> is feeding breaks
> >>
> >>so you can't close that valve? Won't the engine
> quit once that tank
> >>
> >>is empty and the engine starts sucking air? How
> is this better than
> >>
> >>a valve handle failure with the normal design?
> >>
> >>
> >>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> >>
> >>Ottawa, Canada
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
=== message truncated ==
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: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Exactly!
And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
(TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
The other advantages are...
No selector valves to switch.
Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
SIMPLE
No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
Downsides
Uses more electrical power.
Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
Frank
RV7a 4 hours
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
N6030X
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
--> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out
there.
In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload
part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there
was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded
with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of
the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
how much fuel is in the tank,
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: | What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
You want this to be a list of the people, so to speak, so here is my
question. Out of curiosity what is the actual percentage of requests to
ban George over the entire list membership? Is this another case of the
vocal minority winning out over the silent majority?
I for one think George, Paul, and others add value even if it is
veiled in a load of rhetoric and even BS sometimes. Some of the most
brilliant people in history had social issues. When I smell something
funny in a post I always have the option of exercising the delete key.
Honestly I spend more time deleting posts of complaints about other
people than I do of the actual people. Talk about circular arguments.
One of the problems with email has always been the way a person
interprets emotions in the writing. Most of the time people are wrong
in their assumptions so it is better to take emotion out and look for
the actual substance of a post. Less bruised egos and useless replies
that only escalate a situation that probably didn't exist in the first
place.
My $0.02
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
Oh yes, and unlike most of the other posts on this subject.... Do Not
Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: What I learned today
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Listers,
Folks have been bugging me about George for some time.
Over a year perhaps. They keep citing this venue as being my list and
suggested that I have full authority to manage it in whatever way I
want.
I never wanted to view this as "my list". It's always been my fondest
wish that the AeroElectric List be a joint venture, a quest for the
best-we-know-how-to-do. On the other hand, I cannot tolerate circular
arguments that perpetually hat-dance around the simple-ideas while
confusing or misleading those who come here for practical advice.
I guess I could treat this more like a university job.
It's not my building but it is my classroom. A good teacher must be open
to consider every idea but with absolute control over classroom decorum
and a bulwark against bad science and individuals who disrupt what
should be a calm, considered sifting of the simple-ideas.
I might liken this effort to that of accident investigator.
The real work begins after the fire trucks, ambulances and distraught
individuals have left. I've had several occasions where folks who
witnessed or were involved in an accident came over to see what I was
doing and conversationally relive the events from their perspective.
This was always distracting and never yielded useful information. I
never asked any of those folks to leave . . .
after all, the space we shared wasn't my personal property.
In retrospect I'm coming to understand that "space"
comes in many forms and just because someone has a fundamental right to
co exist with us in a physical space doesn't give them a right to invade
(and stir up
trouble) in folk's intellectual space. I promise not to allow such
situations to carry on so long again.
We all have better ways to invest our most precious commodity, time.
Thank you all for your understanding and support of the AeroElectric
List mission. I learn from the List every day and I believe it to be a
powerful tool for advancing the state of our art and science in crafting
the best airplanes to have ever flown.
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 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: | What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Good point, Michael. I rarely ever use the delete key. Even when
Georges posts one of his long tirades that is obviously a pile of horse
s..t, I always dig through it thinking there might be a pony in there
somewhere.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:37 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: What I learned today
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael
> Sausen)"
> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> You want this to be a list of the people, so to speak, so
> here is my question. Out of curiosity what is the actual
> percentage of requests to ban George over the entire list
> membership? Is this another case of the vocal minority
> winning out over the silent majority?
>
> I for one think George, Paul, and others add value even if
> it is veiled in a load of rhetoric and even BS sometimes.
> Some of the most brilliant people in history had social
> issues. When I smell something funny in a post I always have
> the option of exercising the delete key. Honestly I spend
> more time deleting posts of complaints about other people
> than I do of the actual people. Talk about circular arguments.
>
> One of the problems with email has always been the way a
> person interprets emotions in the writing. Most of the time
> people are wrong in their assumptions so it is better to take
> emotion out and look for the actual substance of a post.
> Less bruised egos and useless replies that only escalate a
> situation that probably didn't exist in the first place.
>
> My $0.02
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage
>
> Oh yes, and unlike most of the other posts on this
> subject.... Do Not Archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:11 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: What I learned today
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> --> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> Listers,
>
> Folks have been bugging me about George for some time.
> Over a year perhaps. They keep citing this venue as being my
> list and suggested that I have full authority to manage it in
> whatever way I want.
>
> I never wanted to view this as "my list". It's always been my
> fondest wish that the AeroElectric List be a joint venture, a
> quest for the best-we-know-how-to-do. On the other hand, I
> cannot tolerate circular arguments that perpetually hat-dance
> around the simple-ideas while confusing or misleading those
> who come here for practical advice.
>
> I guess I could treat this more like a university job.
> It's not my building but it is my classroom. A good teacher
> must be open to consider every idea but with absolute control
> over classroom decorum and a bulwark against bad science and
> individuals who disrupt what should be a calm, considered
> sifting of the simple-ideas.
>
> I might liken this effort to that of accident investigator.
> The real work begins after the fire trucks, ambulances and
> distraught individuals have left. I've had several occasions
> where folks who witnessed or were involved in an accident
> came over to see what I was doing and conversationally relive
> the events from their perspective. This was always
> distracting and never yielded useful information. I never
> asked any of those folks to leave . . . after all, the space
> we shared wasn't my personal property.
>
> In retrospect I'm coming to understand that "space"
> comes in many forms and just because someone has a
> fundamental right to co exist with us in a physical space
> doesn't give them a right to invade (and stir up
> trouble) in folk's intellectual space. I promise not to allow
> such situations to carry on so long again. We all have better
> ways to invest our most precious commodity, time.
>
> Thank you all for your understanding and support of the
> AeroElectric List mission. I learn from the List every day
> and I believe it to be a powerful tool for advancing the
> state of our art and science in crafting the best airplanes
> to have ever flown.
>
>
> 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 |
|
I'm wiring the harness for a Terra TX-760D radio. My question is the
interconnect diagram shows the shield for the mic. audio, mic. key and the
headphone attach to the ground. I plan on using the daisy chain system shown
by Bob, however I'm confused about the shields connecting into the ground
wire itself or do they connect to the shield of the ground wire?
Dennis
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
Michael,
I agree with your last paragraph. Of course, one way to handle the
situation is to not post messages when on has an emotional response. Both
of these gentlemen seem to have a difficult time doing that. We should also
recognize that Bob sometimes contributes to these ongoing threads by taking
up the challenges posed by these two individuals (I recognize he feels a
need to do so to keep misinformation or poor quality from getting a hold).
It takes two to have an argument. IMHO, all could benefit from some marshal
arts training to learn how to brush off challenging posts.
For laughs, I checked messages that I have saved that I thought might be
useful down the road sometime. I have counted 3 from George and a dozen or
so from Paul off this list that I thought might fit that category; that is
from more than 400 saves. So for all of their postings, and certainly by
word count, I think almost anyone on this list has a higher percentage of
worthwhile content than do either George or Paul. Also, given the fact that
their postings are often lengthy it takes a lot of time to get through
them - not good value. Not sure that I will miss what might have been
future postings, but not sure they should be banned (wrong word - they have
been told to lay off) either.
My $0.01 worth.
Doug Windhorn
P.S. Now, my pet peeve. My browser opens a message at the top. If one has
important something to say, post it at the top of the message, not the
bottom (I probably have already read the prior messages, that the meaty
content is the resolution of a thread - why should I have to wade through
all the other stuff to get to the conclusion?) Exception: when responding
to several subjects with embedded comments, that is OK, but say you are
doing that at the top.
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 September, 2006 9:36
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: What I learned today
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> You want this to be a list of the people, so to speak, so here is my
> question. Out of curiosity what is the actual percentage of requests to
> ban George over the entire list membership? Is this another case of the
> vocal minority winning out over the silent majority?
>
> I for one think George, Paul, and others add value even if it is
> veiled in a load of rhetoric and even BS sometimes. Some of the most
> brilliant people in history had social issues. When I smell something
> funny in a post I always have the option of exercising the delete key.
> Honestly I spend more time deleting posts of complaints about other
> people than I do of the actual people. Talk about circular arguments.
>
> One of the problems with email has always been the way a person
> interprets emotions in the writing. Most of the time people are wrong
> in their assumptions so it is better to take emotion out and look for
> the actual substance of a post. Less bruised egos and useless replies
> that only escalate a situation that probably didn't exist in the first
> place.
>
> My $0.02
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage
>
> Oh yes, and unlike most of the other posts on this subject.... Do Not
> Archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:11 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: What I learned today
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> --> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> Listers,
>
> Folks have been bugging me about George for some time.
> Over a year perhaps. They keep citing this venue as being my list and
> suggested that I have full authority to manage it in whatever way I
> want.
>
> I never wanted to view this as "my list". It's always been my fondest
> wish that the AeroElectric List be a joint venture, a quest for the
> best-we-know-how-to-do. On the other hand, I cannot tolerate circular
> arguments that perpetually hat-dance around the simple-ideas while
> confusing or misleading those who come here for practical advice.
>
> I guess I could treat this more like a university job.
> It's not my building but it is my classroom. A good teacher must be open
> to consider every idea but with absolute control over classroom decorum
> and a bulwark against bad science and individuals who disrupt what
> should be a calm, considered sifting of the simple-ideas.
>
> I might liken this effort to that of accident investigator.
> The real work begins after the fire trucks, ambulances and distraught
> individuals have left. I've had several occasions where folks who
> witnessed or were involved in an accident came over to see what I was
> doing and conversationally relive the events from their perspective.
> This was always distracting and never yielded useful information. I
> never asked any of those folks to leave . . .
> after all, the space we shared wasn't my personal property.
>
> In retrospect I'm coming to understand that "space"
> comes in many forms and just because someone has a fundamental right to
> co exist with us in a physical space doesn't give them a right to invade
> (and stir up
> trouble) in folk's intellectual space. I promise not to allow such
> situations to carry on so long again.
> We all have better ways to invest our most precious commodity, time.
>
> Thank you all for your understanding and support of the AeroElectric
> List mission. I learn from the List every day and I believe it to be a
> powerful tool for advancing the state of our art and science in crafting
> the best airplanes to have ever flown.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
Doug Windhorn wrote:
>
>
> P.S. Now, my pet peeve. My browser opens a message at the top. If
> one has important something to say, post it at the top of the message,
> not the bottom (I probably have already read the prior messages, that
> the meaty content is the resolution of a thread - why should I have to
> wade through all the other stuff to get to the conclusion?)
> Exception: when responding to several subjects with embedded comments,
> that is OK, but say you are doing that at the top.
Hi Doug,
As a counter, my pet peeve is when people post things at the top...
*grin* My brain processes things easier when it is laid out in order,
from top to bottom, and I like to have the context of the previous
messages listed out before the replies, which makes things MUCH easier
to understand when going back to reference that saved e-mail, or when
reading through the archives. Reading from bottom to top tends to get
very confusing...
So, there are two sides to every coin, I guess. :-)
-Dj
do not archive
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Radio shields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
rOn Wed, 2006-09-13 at 10:12, Dennis Jones wrote:
> I?m wiring the harness for a Terra TX-760D radio. My question is the
> interconnect diagram shows the shield for the mic. audio, mic. key and
> the headphone attach to the ground. I plan on using the daisy chain
> system shown by Bob, however I?m confused about the shields connecting
> into the ground wire itself or do they connect to the shield of the
> ground wire?
If the radio itself has separate sheild and ground connections (most
don't) then you would connect the shield and ground to their respective
connections. Most radios just have a ground connection so both the
shield and the ground wire (if they are separate) should connect to the
ground pin(s) at the radio.
Normally I would run separate wire for mic/ptt and headphone. Speaking
specifically of the mic/ptt wiring, you can use the shield of the mic
cable as your mic and ptt ground wiring if you wish. If your mic wiring
has three conductors plus shield, I would probably use one conductor for
ground and then not attach anything to the shield (except at the radio).
If you are using an intercom you will probably have separate mic/ptt
wiring for each mic jack. (Most intercoms provide mic isolation when you
hit the PTT for one mic, the other mics are muted to keep noise from
getting into the transmit audio.)
If you are not using an intercom then you may daisy-chain your mic and
PTT connections. Just continue ground, shield, PTT, and mic hot.
Whatever you choose to do be sure you insulate the mic jacks from the
airframe.
Headphone wiring does not need to be shielded. I would use twisted pair.
You can get away with using airframe ground for the ground side of your
headphone but you are more likely to get some noise pick-up. This may
become objectionable if you are trying to have high-fidelity audio. Best
to insulate the headphone jacks as well.
Brian Lloyd
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: | Re: Glowing Warning Lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:16 AM 9/13/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>After studying the schematic (I'm a little slow with this stuff), it
>appears that the resistors can be installed at the regulator, one across
>terminals 3 and 5, and the other in series from the wire running from
>terminal 5 to the LED.
Look at it again. The two resistors would go in series between 3 and 5
and the LED fed from the protected end of the fuse and the TAP BETWEEN
the two resistors.
> I'm assuming some heat will be generated by the resistors and
> installing them at the regular would work better for me with cooling.
The RECOMMENDED resistors are at least 1/2 watt and 1 watt is preferred.
Like the selection of 1N540X series diodes over 1N400X series is their
mechanical robustness. The actual power dissipated in the 220 watt series
resistor is about 11(squared)/220 = 550 milliwatts which is divided in
two again due to the approx 50% duty cycle of the flashing lamp.
So heating is an insignificant concern.
>
>One other question, why not use a relay? I understand the added
>complexity issue, but that would give you a dark LED without sacrificing
>any brightness when it's illuminated. Right? Any part number
>recommendations would be appreciated.
LED's are current operated devices, the resistors don't sacrifice
brightness, they prevent darkness by keeping the LED from being
destroyed by using it to directly replace an incandescent lamp
sans resistors. A relay would suffer from the same kinds of issues
as a barefoot LED. Relays can be held closed by a tiny fraction of
the current that it takes to energize it. Further, you would still
need at least one of the two resistors to set the LED's operating
current. Finally, relays are rated amongst the least reliable of
components. It behoves us to limit their use where ever practical.
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:36 AM 9/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
><rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> You want this to be a list of the people, so to speak, so here is my
>question. Out of curiosity what is the actual percentage of requests to
>ban George over the entire list membership? Is this another case of the
>vocal minority winning out over the silent majority?
This is not a democracy. The decision to ask George to leave
was mine alone and I stand by it . . . his nugget/noise
ratio was simply too low to invest any more time on it.
Somebody asked for "a vote" but that was after I'd made
the decision and no amount of voting one way or another
would have altered it.
> I for one think George, Paul, and others add value even if it is
>veiled in a load of rhetoric and even BS sometimes. Some of the most
>brilliant people in history had social issues. When I smell something
>funny in a post I always have the option of exercising the delete key.
>Honestly I spend more time deleting posts of complaints about other
>people than I do of the actual people. Talk about circular arguments.
>
> One of the problems with email has always been the way a person
>interprets emotions in the writing. Most of the time people are wrong
>in their assumptions so it is better to take emotion out and look for
>the actual substance of a post. Less bruised egos and useless replies
>that only escalate a situation that probably didn't exist in the first
>place.
Words mean things. You may use them to inform, entertain,
persuade or hurt. The fact that 5% of someone's words fall into
the first two categories does not justify a toleration of 95%
falling into the later categories. This is especially true when
they hat-dance around the core issues of the discussion, never
participate in the exploration and assembly of simple-ideas,
and cannot lay foundation for persuasion masquerading
as information.
I've participated in many classrooms both up front and
sitting in the chairs. It's a poor return on investment
of time to sift through "noise" looking for "nuggets".
I've left the chairs in a classroom where nugget/noise
radio was poor. I have assumed responsibility for keeping
those numbers high in this classroom.
Assuming one has a common ground in the meaning of written
words, then interpretation must be based on the words and
not upon anyone's feelings about the words. If writers
never use words intended to hurt, then a reader's feelings
are his/her own problem. There's no duty on the part
of a writer to assuage the reader's discomforts other than
to clarify information. There is risk some folks are hurt
by words others find "entertaining". Common sense is called
for . . . it's easy for hurting words to masquerade as
entertainment. Red Skelton and George Burns could entertain
and hurt nobody. Much of what passes for entertainment
today is overtly mean and exacts a toll on liberty of
others.
I try to start any conversation with a core belief that
folks on the other end are looking for clear and useful
info. They have every right to expect the best possible
foundations be laid for anything I or anyone else has
to offer. Anything outside this process is noise and
should be minimized. Should the noise become overwhelming
or hurtful, then polite termination is called for.
Bob . . .
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Radio shields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:12 PM 9/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>I m wiring the harness for a Terra TX-760D radio. My question is the
>interconnect diagram shows the shield for the mic. audio, mic. key and the
>headphone attach to the ground. I plan on using the daisy chain system
>shown by Bob, however I m confused about the shields connecting into the
>ground wire itself or do they connect to the shield of the ground wire?
Can you scan the wiring from the instruction manual
and send it to me?
It would be useful to see how they've depicted their
suggestions for the installation.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 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: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Fuel system problems are a major cause of engine stoppage in
homebuilt aircraft. Any fuel system that deviates from the norm, in
either design or installation details, opens the door to unexpected
problems. You have made a bunch of assumptions on how the system
will perform following various types of failures. It would be wise
to validate those assumptions via actual tests, either on the ground,
or in the air over a nice long runway.
Kevin Horton
On 13 Sep 2006, at 08:51, Gary Casey wrote:
> Yes, there are still a number of failure modes that could create a
> problem, even with two independent fuel valves. In the case
> mentioned below, the low tank valve breaks and won't shut off. In
> that case the (presumably fuller) tank could be turned on, feeding
> fuel from both tanks and the plane landed at the earliest
> convenience. The fuller tank would probably back-feed into the
> lower tank, extending the range compared to just feeding off the
> lowest tank, depending on the level of fuel in the fuller tank. In
> any event one has to assume there is only the fuel left in the
> lowest tank. If the valve for the "new" tank failed to open (broke
> in the closed position) the response is simple - land before the
> low tank goes empty. Not a perfect condition, but there are still
> options available that might not be available with a single valve.
> If a single valve broke in the "low" tank position fuel in the
> fuller tank is completely unavailable. If it sticks and breaks
> between tanks (what I think is a more likely failure) neither tank
> is available and the engine quits right away. The normal operating
> procedure with two valves is to open the valve for the new tank,
> confirming that it actually moved, and then shutting off the valve
> from the old tank. Never shut the old one off before turning the
> new one on. Also, I know that there have been some postings
> advocating, or at least acknowledging, running a tank dry as a
> routine operating mode. I suppose if there were more than two
> tanks this isn't so bad, but with only two tanks doing that gives
> up one of the redundancies in the system - two independent sources
> of fuel. I personally don't like the idea of running a tank dry.
> My own standard is to never run either tank lower than what is
> required to get to the nearest airport. FWIW.
>
> Gary Casey
> Lancair ES
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 11:55 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You are worried about fuel valve handles breaking. With your design,
>> what happens if you have run one tank down low, want to switch to the
>> other tank, and the valve handle on the tank that is feeding breaks
>> so you can't close that valve? Won't the engine quit once that tank
>> is empty and the engine starts sucking air? How is this better than
>> a valve handle failure with the normal design?
>>
>> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>> Ottawa, Canada
>
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 |
|
In a transponder what is considered suppression out and remote ground when
used in the wire harness.
Dennis
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 |
|
Bob
Here is the drawings for the Terra 760-D in regards to dealing with the
shields and grounds.
Thanks
Dennis
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Replacement led lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Bob,
Do you have a suggestion for a source for reasonably priced LED replacement
bulbs for my non aircraft related project. T3-1/4 and T1-3/4 cases, 14 or
28V.
Bevan
RV7A finish kit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glowing Warning Lights
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:16 AM 9/13/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>After studying the schematic (I'm a little slow with this stuff), it
>appears that the resistors can be installed at the regulator, one
>across terminals 3 and 5, and the other in series from the wire running
>from terminal 5 to the LED.
Look at it again. The two resistors would go in series between 3 and 5
and the LED fed from the protected end of the fuse and the TAP BETWEEN
the two resistors.
> I'm assuming some heat will be generated by the resistors and
> installing them at the regular would work better for me with cooling.
The RECOMMENDED resistors are at least 1/2 watt and 1 watt is preferred.
Like the selection of 1N540X series diodes over 1N400X series is their
mechanical robustness. The actual power dissipated in the 220 watt series
resistor is about 11(squared)/220 = 550 milliwatts which is divided in
two again due to the approx 50% duty cycle of the flashing lamp.
So heating is an insignificant concern.
>
>One other question, why not use a relay? I understand the added
>complexity issue, but that would give you a dark LED without
>sacrificing any brightness when it's illuminated. Right? Any part
>number recommendations would be appreciated.
LED's are current operated devices, the resistors don't sacrifice
brightness, they prevent darkness by keeping the LED from being
destroyed by using it to directly replace an incandescent lamp
sans resistors. A relay would suffer from the same kinds of issues
as a barefoot LED. Relays can be held closed by a tiny fraction of
the current that it takes to energize it. Further, you would still
need at least one of the two resistors to set the LED's operating
current. Finally, relays are rated amongst the least reliable of
components. It behoves us to limit their use where ever practical.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Hello Dennis,
What brand of transponder are you dealing with?
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Dennis Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
In a transponder what is considered suppression out and remote ground
when used in the wire harness.
Dennis
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: John Deere PM alternator regulator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
I can add one more interesting tidbit to this thread. Disconnecting the
Battery wire from the failed regulator does NOT stop the overvoltage.
I'm told it does stop the alternator output with a good regulator but it
does not do that on this failed unit.
Sounds similar to the automotive IR alternator where we also can not
guarantee that disconnecting the IGN wire will stop the alternator
output if the VR has already failed and is causing an overvoltage.
Ken
Dave N6030X wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Many in the Corvair group (www.FlyCorvair.com) are using this same
> John Deere generator/VR combo. You might take up the question there
> and find out what people have witnessed. The guy who's probably flown
> more hours with that combo than anybody is Gus Warren down at William
> Wynne's hangar in Florida.
>
> Dave Morris
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alternator vs. second battery |
Thanx for the reply Ken, sounds like good advice!
I'll take it!
Tony
From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Debating on an alternator or two
batteries?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hello Tony
Personally with an electric dependant engine, I'd happily trade 4 lbs
or so of battery for a small permanent magnet alternator and I suspect
the alternator would be the lighter option if you have a few hours of
fuel on board.
Bob just posted some references on battery discharging that you will
want to look at.
For a primary battery with no alternator I'd suggest multiplying your
hours of fuel by 2.5 amps and then picking a battery that can supply
that (from its spec. sheet) and then doubling it. Another battery
characteristic is that the deeper you discharge them, the fewer
discharge - charge cycles they last so planning for a 50% discharge
when
the fuel runs out might be reasonable. That would also allow for other
sub optimal conditions such as temperature.
Ken
Tony Gibson wrote:
> Hi Group, my name's Tony Gibson, I've been a lurker on the list for
> almost a year now and am building a Sonerai 2L - read 550lb slightly
> underpowered two place! :)
>
> I'm trying to take as much weight out of the plane as I can by
keeping
> it simple. There's a lot of reasons I'm considering two batteries
> rather than a battery and an alternator. But saving a bit of weight
> isn't the main reason, the fact that I can move the weight of
battery
> where ever I want in the plane is a big bonus for servicing it
> nevermind balancing, and ....the last thing I will do is put lead
> weight back into it!
>
> I have an ignition system that draws ~1 amp and a single fuel pump
> that draws another amp. I decided against the starter and the only
> other amp draws will be two small Stratomaster instruments drawing
> less than half an amp together. Total draw would be less than 2.5
Amps
>
> With the right warning system to indicate a low primary battery
> I'm wondering if something like a 3 - 5 Ah battery would be large
> enough for a backup? What about the primary?
>
> The downside of course is what would I do on a crosscountry trip?
> Argh! :)
>
> Thanx a lot, appreciate any help and opinions!
> Tony
>
---------------------------------
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 |
|
Terra TRT 250D
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Gill
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
Hello Dennis,
What brand of transponder are you dealing with?
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
In a transponder what is considered suppression out and remote ground when
used in the wire harness.
Dennis
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
-->
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-->
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
-->
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-->
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! --
|