AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Fri 09/15/06


Total Messages Posted: 19



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 03:16 AM - Re: Radio shields (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     2. 03:40 AM - Re: Magneto Switches and Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     3. 04:31 AM - Re: Re: Z13/8 .... relays (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     4. 06:13 AM - Fuel Pump Switch(es) ()
     5. 06:40 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (OldBob Siegfried)
     6. 06:47 AM - Re: TranspondersTranspondersTransponders (Greg Campbell)
     7. 07:19 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Gary Casey)
     8. 07:25 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
     9. 09:47 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed Holyoke)
    10. 10:25 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    11. 10:25 AM - Re: Radio shields (djones@northboone.net)
    12. 11:22 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (OldBob Siegfried)
    13. 12:02 PM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    14. 12:46 PM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Dave N6030X)
    15. 01:32 PM - segregation of wires . . .  (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    16. 04:37 PM - Re: Re: What I learned today (Harold Kovac)
    17. 04:49 PM - Temperature calibration..... (Jim Baker)
    18. 09:32 PM - Re: Temperature calibration..... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    19. 09:50 PM - Re: Temperature calibration..... (Jim Baker)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 03:16:04 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Radio shields
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:51 PM 9/14/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net > >For crimped pins with the ground wires as the inermost wouldn't the >pigtail and >ground wire ends come together and then crimp into the d-sub pin. > >Dennis Shielded ground wires? Don't know why anyone would do that. Grounded wires are, by definition, immune to the effects of electrostatic noise coupling. Two classes of wiring benefit from the addition of shielding (which is grounded at least at one end). (1) wires that carry strong potentially antagonistic signals (high voltage, fast risetime waveforms). Magneto p-leads are always worth shielding unless you're building a day vfr machine with no radios. (2) wires that carry small, potentially victim signals (low voltages that carry intelligence in the form of voice, data or display signals). These will be circuits like microphones and small signal lines between various black boxes of a system. Wires that are used for grounding do no fall into either of these categories. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 03:40:15 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Magneto Switches and Wiring
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 06:08 AM 9/14/2006 -0400, you wrote: >Listers, > >I've read Bob's book and searched the archives but still can't seem to >find answers to confirm that my desired approach on magneto and starter >wiring will work (or maybe there is a simpler way). > >I have two traditional magnetos for an IO-360. I would like to have a >toggle switch for each mag, and a momentary toggle for the starter (with a >toggle guard for added protection of inadvertent activation). > >I don't fully understand the "impulse" aspect of the magneto. Could >someone help explain such and outline the correct wiring for this setup? This is discussed in an article I published at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf That article needs to be updated to talk about the new, solid-state implementation of "SOS" technology that can be added to an impulse coupled mag. This impulse coupler provides the delayed opening of the points so that a two-point mag is needed to implement the energy augmentation offered by the "Slick Start". See: http://aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/slickstart.php Check out the drawing: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Ignition/TogMagSw.pdf Here I show the use of toggle switches in combination with a push button for starting -and- a way you can use spring loaded toggle switches to combine starter control into the ignition switches thereby eliminating one panel control. A common feature of both drawings is interlocking of starter control through the two switches so that the starter can be activated only with left mag (impulse coupled) ON and right mag OFF. This requirement for specific positioning of the switches makes inadvertent starter activation exceedingly unlikely and reduces the need for any kind of separate guarding of the starter switch. Bob. . . > >Thanks, > >Jeff > > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List ><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ---------------------------------------------------------


    Message 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
    Time: 04:31:24 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Z13/8 .... relays
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 05:26 PM 9/14/2006 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" ><fstringham@hotmail.com> > >Bob and all you electric heads > >I am wiring my aircraft (RV7A) according to Z 13/8. > >It dawned on me that maybe I may have either the wrong "Z" or just not >thinking straight or both! > >The panel I envision and am working towards will have the Dynon 100 EFIS/ >D 150 EMS, Garmin centric Nav/Com/transponder/announciator panel, Trio EZ >pilot and altitude hold, rocky mountian u encoder. The panel will be >backed up by a hand held nav/com and garmin 396 or PDA of some sort. > >Now the questions. Is the endurance bus really necessary, in my case, >considering alot of the panel devices will have their own internal power >source (Dynon's, 396, u encoder, hand held)? Wouldn't it be simpler to >have a main power bus and an avionics bus. Does "simpler" translate to "more desirable". The various architectures suggested in Appendix Z were crafted to deal with perceived shortcomings of contemporary type certificated systems as describe in the chapter on system reliability. If you don's subscribe to any of those philosophies then you're certainly free to adopt any alternatives you find more attractive. > In the event of one or both alternators going south just shut down the > main bus leave on the avionics bus. Allow the internally regulated > devices to do their thing. Shut off unessential devices at their source. > And if worst came to worst shut down the avioncs bus and use the hand > held and the PDA? I am old school and still would like to beable to turn > the avionics bus on at the panel. You're not going to loose two alternators on any one tank full of gas. It sounds like you're comfortable with your understanding of how the type certificated machine is configured. What we can help you with here is to discuss features that depart from the traditional to see if they make sense for your project. >ON the other hand I do like Z 13/8 with all it brings to the wiring table >in terms of few switches to change in the event of an alterntor melt down. So how can we help you? It's not our mission to persuade you to do anything - only to share our understanding of the operational trade-offs of one philosophy over another. The modern alternator combined with a well maintained RG battery stuck into a C-172 elevates reliability of that system by a factor of 10 or more over what it left the factory with. If you're perfectly willing to launch into the gray in a TC aircraft, then if you wired your OBAM aircraft the same way but with modern alternator and battery . . . you have a combination that offers great comfort. If you're agonizing over things you seen in Appendix Z as compared to the way a C-172 is wired, then the most we can do is to help you ponder/elaborate on the explanations in Chapter 17 as an aid to your decision making process. But nobody here should hold forth that anything is NECESSARY or REQUIRED . . . only that some features are more attractive and then explain the reasoning behind the assertion. What's your mission for this aircraft. How does a C-172 system fall short of your design goals? Which features, if any, in the Z-figures add any degree of assistance to achieving your goals? Here's where we can help you sort the pieces. >Question 2? What function do relays give to the process of wiring up the >stick with trim/flap/ppt/etc/etc/........I can wire them up....monkey see >monkey do.....But would like to kown why these relays (switches) are >necessary and what purpose they serve. My notion is to have each of the >functions on the stick as well as right side panel. A part that is not installed in your airplane is not a part that will need fixing later. Again, compare what you can rent from the local FBO and gage that against your design goals for improving upon what you can rent. Earlier you alluded to the value in having things "simpler" . . . but in this paragraph it seems like you may have stirred in considerable complexity. Aside from the whizz factor for having lots of switches and buttons, how will these features help you fly the airplane better at a lower cost of ownership and greater reliability? >Thanks in advance for your comments and please pass the towel I notice I >am dripping from behind the ears. Understand . . . and we all hope that your experience here will be useful in the "drying out" process. Part of that process requires asking the right questions but those need to drive toward what YOU want this airplane to do for you, not what any of us THINKS it should do for you. You need to list some objectives. What features do you find lacking in the local FBO's rentals that you'd like to have in your airplane? How will this feature reduce work load, increase reliability, reduce cost of ownership, increase/decrease weight, etc. Many folks here on the List will have suggestions but the final decisions need to be uniquely yours. Let's talk about it! Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 06:13:34 AM PST US
    From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
    Subject: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Frank wrote: "......skip......Of course if the risk so high (like 400 people on a DC10) then there might be 3 independent hydraulic systems.....skip......" 9/15/2006 Hello Frank, This response is not intended to be a criticism of, or substantive contribution to the switch issue that you were addressing, but merely a comment on the perfidy or irony that can lurk in aviation designs, incidents, or accidents. Incident One: The famous DC-10 Souix City crash of United Flight 232 flown by Capt. Al Haynes when a disintegrating engine disabled all three hydraulic systems. Incident Two: The double, and almost triple, engine failure incident on a three engined airline transport airplane when a mechanic replaced all three engine oil sump plugs without first installing an O ring on each plug. The plane eventually successfully landed with only one engine operating. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.


    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
    Time: 06:40:49 AM PST US
    From: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com> Good Morning OC, And don't forget the DC-10 out of Miami that encountered a hydraulic problem shortly after takeoff. This incident happened within the first couple of months after the DC-10 was placed in service. The Captain was one of the sharpest tacks in the box, took immediate action, and got the airplane back on the ground rapidly. It was found that the back up hydraulic systems had all failed due to vibration of the hydraulic lines. They were "hard" lines. All such lines were immediately replaced with flexible lines. Had he had it in the air another couple of minutes, all control would have been lost. A major save by an exceptional aviator. I am sure the Douglas designers had checked the operation of their design thoroughly on the ground and in mockups. Unfortunately, the conditions encountered in the actual failure never showed up in any of the design flight testing. There is considerable advantage to sticking with the tried and true. When departing from that norm, it pays to test every back up system with a true time failure. Sometimes, it is extremely difficult to simulate the actual conditions that will occur following a failure. Happy Skies, Old Bob Stearman N3977A Downers Grove, IL LL22 --- bakerocb@cox.net wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > <bakerocb@cox.net> > > Responding to an AeroElectric-List message > previously posted by: "Hinde, > Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Frank wrote: "......skip......Of course if the risk > so high (like 400 people > on a DC10) then there > might be 3 independent hydraulic > systems.....skip......" > > 9/15/2006 > > Hello Frank, This response is not intended to be a > criticism of, or > substantive contribution to the switch issue that > you were addressing, but > merely a comment on the perfidy or irony that can > lurk in aviation designs, > incidents, or accidents. > > Incident One: The famous DC-10 Souix City crash of > United Flight 232 flown > by Capt. Al Haynes when a disintegrating engine > disabled all three hydraulic > systems. > > Incident Two: The double, and almost triple, engine > failure incident on a > three engined airline transport airplane when a > mechanic replaced all three > engine oil sump plugs without first installing an O > ring on each plug. The > plane eventually successfully landed with only one > engine operating. > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in > gathering knowledge. > >


    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
    Time: 06:47:23 AM PST US
    From: "Greg Campbell" <gregcampbellusa@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: TranspondersTranspondersTransponders
    Another reason to have two transponders... 1) if you have a Mode S transponder and you want the TIS info when in those areas and 2) you have a spare Mode C transponder that doesn't always broadcast your ID... You could call it a backup, or a convenience, or selectable anonymity ;-) Greg


    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
    Time: 07:19:52 AM PST US
    From: Gary Casey <glcasey@adelphia.net>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey <glcasey@adelphia.net> Kevin previously wrote: "If you don't do the test then, someday you may stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft. "For example, what is the engine restart procedure after you have shut one tank down, and were slow opening the other fuel valve, resulting in engine stoppage? When would you rather try out your planned restart procedure for the first time? Overhead a long runway at 5,000 ft when you were mentally prepared for problems? Or over rough country with no fields or runways in sight when a stoppage would be a complete surprise? Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should be tested? The one you mention about restarting the engine was confirmed twice - once on each tank, with predictable results. The engine started just as it normally does after fuel flow resumes. I also verified on the ground that if a high vacuum is pulled on the system nothing leaks or collapses in a way that would block fuel flow when the fuel was turned back on. Are there others you had in mind? A similar question might go to those who use conventional fuel selectors - has anyone checked the width of the "dead band" between tanks to see what happened if the valve isn't turned all the way? I doubt that one in a hundred people would check that during the flight test phase - I don't think I would have. Finally, there was a discussion about using dual wing root pumps in a plane using an EFI system. I was going that way for a while and after analyzing the alternatives came to the same conclusion. And what are the odds that one will inadvertently run a tank dry and then discover the other pump doesn't work? The pilot is probably not that reliable and he might do it one in a thousand or even one in a hundred (I'll admit doing it once in 1500 hours of flying) times. However, what are the odds that the pump won't run after having previously run DURING THE SAME FLIGHT? I suggest it is more like one in 100,000. However, there is a problem with using automotive roller vane or Gerotor pumps - they are not very tolerant of contamination. I think a nylon inlet "sock" just as used in automotive applications is necessary to protect the pump. The coarse screens typically used in aircraft aren't adequate for that purpose. Gary Casey


    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
    Time: 07:25:56 AM PST US
    Subject: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Sounds like the single point of failure was the mechanic...Hmm guess there is way round that one...:) Actually the United 232 incident was the one I was thinking of when I wrote that, in a way the complex 3 hydraulic systems still had a single point of failure...i.e when the #2 engine blew up! Mind you in a single engine plane I guee we are preapred for at least some risk right...:) Frank --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Frank wrote: "......skip......Of course if the risk so high (like 400 people on a DC10) then there might be 3 independent hydraulic systems.....skip......" 9/15/2006 Hello Frank, This response is not intended to be a criticism of, or substantive contribution to the switch issue that you were addressing, but merely a comment on the perfidy or irony that can lurk in aviation designs, incidents, or accidents. Incident One: The famous DC-10 Souix City crash of United Flight 232 flown by Capt. Al Haynes when a disintegrating engine disabled all three hydraulic systems. Incident Two: The double, and almost triple, engine failure incident on a three engined airline transport airplane when a mechanic replaced all three engine oil sump plugs without first installing an O ring on each plug. The plane eventually successfully landed with only one engine operating. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.


    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
    Time: 09:47:37 AM PST US
    From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
    Subject: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net> Gary, As I understand it, the coarse screens at the tank pickups are meant to stop the big chunks without stopping up with an accumulation of small stuff. I've always thought the reasoning was that the fuel screens in the tank get checked rarely if ever, but the finer gascolator and finer yet carb screens are to be inspected regularly. If finding accumulations there, it's a real good reason to make the extra effort to check the tanks. If there were fine screens in the tank, they could stop up without the warning afforded by seeing small accretions at more easily inspected locations. You probably didn't slosh your tanks and that's a good thing, but the possibility of contamination being introduced into your tanks is not zero and unless you were to inspect those nylon socks regularly, you probably wouldn't know until they plugged up. Pax, Ed Holyoke --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey <glcasey@adelphia.net> >However, there is a problem with using automotive roller vane or Gerotor pumps - they are not very tolerant of contamination. I think a nylon inlet "sock" just as used in automotive applications is necessary to protect the pump. The coarse screens typically used in aircraft aren't adequate for that purpose. Gary Casey


    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
    Time: 10:25:33 AM PST US
    Subject: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Correct, The airflow performance pump in the Standard airplane setup has a very fine mesh filter in front of it. I assume the is a bypass around the pump should this plug? On the wingroot pump method I have a fine filter at the inlet of each pump...Should one plug there is the other one. At the first oil change (10 hours?) I will junk these cheap paper filters and change to the sintered bronze deal on each pump. There is debate that one should not use paper as a filter because it could swell if it encountered water...Not sure I believe that would be a problem in real life but hey, if you got the choice might as well do the right thing. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:46 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" --> <bicyclop@pacbell.net> Gary, As I understand it, the coarse screens at the tank pickups are meant to stop the big chunks without stopping up with an accumulation of small stuff. I've always thought the reasoning was that the fuel screens in the tank get checked rarely if ever, but the finer gascolator and finer yet carb screens are to be inspected regularly. If finding accumulations there, it's a real good reason to make the extra effort to check the tanks. If there were fine screens in the tank, they could stop up without the warning afforded by seeing small accretions at more easily inspected locations. You probably didn't slosh your tanks and that's a good thing, but the possibility of contamination being introduced into your tanks is not zero and unless you were to inspect those nylon socks regularly, you probably wouldn't know until they plugged up. Pax, Ed Holyoke --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey <glcasey@adelphia.net> >However, there is a problem with using automotive roller vane or Gerotor pumps - they are not very tolerant of contamination. I think a nylon inlet "sock" just as used in automotive applications is necessary to protect the pump. The coarse screens typically used in aircraft aren't adequate for that purpose. Gary Casey


    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
    Time: 10:25:34 AM PST US
    From: djones@northboone.net
    Subject: Re: Radio shields
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net Bob I was refering to the schematic for the Terra radios where the phone and mic jack shielded wires come into the radio and the shield of those wires are tied into the ground wire going into the radio using the daisy chain system and the pig tail attaches to the ground. Dennis Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 08:51 PM 9/14/2006 -0500, you wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net >> >> For crimped pins with the ground wires as the inermost wouldn't the >> pigtail and >> ground wire ends come together and then crimp into the d-sub pin. >> >> Dennis > > Shielded ground wires? Don't know why anyone would do that. > Grounded wires are, by definition, immune to the effects > of electrostatic noise coupling. > > Two classes of wiring benefit from the addition of shielding > (which is grounded at least at one end). > > (1) wires that carry strong potentially antagonistic > signals (high voltage, fast risetime waveforms). > Magneto p-leads are always worth shielding unless > you're building a day vfr machine with no radios. > > (2) wires that carry small, potentially victim signals > (low voltages that carry intelligence in the form > of voice, data or display signals). These will be > circuits like microphones and small signal lines > between various black boxes of a system. > > Wires that are used for grounding do no fall into > either of these categories. > > Bob . . . > >


    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
    Time: 11:22:52 AM PST US
    From: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>
    Subject: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com> Good Afternoon Frank, Just as a point of conversation, you might be interested in Steve Wittmans's personal philosophy of fuel filtering. He told me once that the majority of his engine failures had been due to crud or water in the fuel. It would clog up those little filters on the gascolators that were so ubiquitous on Cubs, T-Crafts, and the like. Therefore, Steve eliminated all of the filters down stream of the fuel tank. None in the gascolator and none in the carburetor. He made a tent in the bottom of his fuel tank out of the same material as the little filters in the gascolator were made from. For a two foot long round fuel tank (the type favored by Steve) he ended up with a section of screen approximately two feet long and four inches wide. The tent walls were each about two inches high. In addition to that, he made a tubular unit out of the same screen material that would fit down into the fueling port. It was about six inches long and was of a diameter that would easily fit in the opening. There was a section of screen soldered to the bottom of the tube and a suitable collar soldered around the top such that the tube would not fall into the tank. Steve would always fuel his airplane through that tube while he watched carefully for any water or other crud in the filling tube. Whatever managed to get by that setup was, hopefully, blocked out of the system by the large area screen in the bottom of the tank. The fuel pick up was inside the "tent". Obviously, our fuel is a lot cleaner than it was forty or fifty years ago when Steve was having problems, but it was, nevertheless, a neat solution to the problems he had encountered. Happy Skies, Old Bob Stearman N3977A Downers Grove, Illinois LL22 --- "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, > Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Correct, > > The airflow performance pump in the Standard > airplane setup has a very > fine mesh filter in front of it. > > I assume the is a bypass around the pump should this > plug? > > On the wingroot pump method I have a fine filter at > the inlet of each > pump...Should one plug there is the other one. > > At the first oil change (10 hours?) I will junk > these cheap paper > filters and change to the sintered bronze deal on > each pump. > > There is debate that one should not use paper as a > filter because it > could swell if it encountered water...Not sure I > believe that would be a > problem in real life but hey, if you got the choice > might as well do the > right thing. > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Ed > Holyoke > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:46 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed > Holyoke" > --> <bicyclop@pacbell.net> > > Gary, > > As I understand it, the coarse screens at the tank > pickups are meant to > stop the big chunks without stopping up with an > accumulation of small > stuff. I've always thought the reasoning was that > the fuel screens in > the tank get checked rarely if ever, but the finer > gascolator and finer > yet carb screens are to be inspected regularly. If > finding accumulations > there, it's a real good reason to make the extra > effort to check the > tanks. > > If there were fine screens in the tank, they could > stop up without the > warning afforded by seeing small accretions at more > easily inspected > locations. You probably didn't slosh your tanks and > that's a good thing, > but the possibility of contamination being > introduced into your tanks is > not zero and unless you were to inspect those nylon > socks regularly, you > probably wouldn't know until they plugged up. > > Pax, > > Ed Holyoke > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey > <glcasey@adelphia.net> > >However, > there is a problem with using automotive roller vane > or Gerotor pumps > - they are not very tolerant of contamination. I > think a nylon inlet > "sock" just as used in automotive applications is > necessary to protect > the pump. The coarse screens typically used in > aircraft aren't adequate > for that purpose. > > Gary Casey > > > > > > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > Web Forums! > > > Admin. > > > > >


    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
    Time: 12:02:46 PM PST US
    Subject: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Wow that's quite a solution...:) I went the "large as I could get filters" method but even those would not prevent a catastrophic contamination event. Filtering the fuel on the way in is a pain but it looks like Staev has a workable solution there. Thanks for the tip Bob Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of OldBob Siegfried Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:21 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried --> <oldbob@beechowners.com> Good Afternoon Frank, Just as a point of conversation, you might be interested in Steve Wittmans's personal philosophy of fuel filtering. He told me once that the majority of his engine failures had been due to crud or water in the fuel. It would clog up those little filters on the gascolators that were so ubiquitous on Cubs, T-Crafts, and the like.


    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
    Time: 12:46:34 PM PST US
    From: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
    Subject: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> Filtering it going into the tank is great, but I'm not sure how he would clean the "tent" filter. How about those nice huge high-flow Fram HPG-1 filters? I'll bet it would take a real mess to clog one of those puppies. They are also pretty heavy. Dave Morris At 01:20 PM 9/15/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried ><oldbob@beechowners.com> > >Good Afternoon Frank, > >Just as a point of conversation, you might be >interested in Steve Wittmans's personal philosophy of >fuel filtering. > >He told me once that the majority of his engine >failures had been due to crud or water in the fuel. It >would clog up those little filters on the gascolators >that were so ubiquitous on Cubs, T-Crafts, and the >like. > >Therefore, Steve eliminated all of the filters down >stream of the fuel tank. None in the gascolator and >none in the carburetor. > >He made a tent in the bottom of his fuel tank out of >the same material as the little filters in the >gascolator were made from. For a two foot long round >fuel tank (the type favored by Steve) he ended up with >a section of screen approximately two feet long and >four inches wide. The tent walls were each about two >inches high. > >In addition to that, he made a tubular unit out of the >same screen material that would fit down into the >fueling port. It was about six inches long and was of >a diameter that would easily fit in the opening. There >was a section of screen soldered to the bottom of the >tube and a suitable collar soldered around the top >such that the tube would not fall into the tank. > >Steve would always fuel his airplane through that tube >while he watched carefully for any water or other crud >in the filling tube. > >Whatever managed to get by that setup was, hopefully, >blocked out of the system by the large area screen in >the bottom of the tank. The fuel pick up was inside >the "tent". > >Obviously, our fuel is a lot cleaner than it was forty >or fifty years ago when Steve was having problems, but >it was, nevertheless, a neat solution to the problems >he had encountered. > >Happy Skies, > >Old Bob >Stearman N3977A >Downers Grove, Illinois >LL22 > >--- "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" ><frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote: > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, > > Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > > > Correct, > > > > The airflow performance pump in the Standard > > airplane setup has a very > > fine mesh filter in front of it. > > > > I assume the is a bypass around the pump should this > > plug? > > > > On the wingroot pump method I have a fine filter at > > the inlet of each > > pump...Should one plug there is the other one. > > > > At the first oil change (10 hours?) I will junk > > these cheap paper > > filters and change to the sintered bronze deal on > > each pump. > > > > There is debate that one should not use paper as a > > filter because it > > could swell if it encountered water...Not sure I > > believe that would be a > > problem in real life but hey, if you got the choice > > might as well do the > > right thing. > > > > Frank > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > > On Behalf Of Ed > > Holyoke > > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:46 AM > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed > > Holyoke" > > --> <bicyclop@pacbell.net> > > > > Gary, > > > > As I understand it, the coarse screens at the tank > > pickups are meant to > > stop the big chunks without stopping up with an > > accumulation of small > > stuff. I've always thought the reasoning was that > > the fuel screens in > > the tank get checked rarely if ever, but the finer > > gascolator and finer > > yet carb screens are to be inspected regularly. If > > finding accumulations > > there, it's a real good reason to make the extra > > effort to check the > > tanks. > > > > If there were fine screens in the tank, they could > > stop up without the > > warning afforded by seeing small accretions at more > > easily inspected > > locations. You probably didn't slosh your tanks and > > that's a good thing, > > but the possibility of contamination being > > introduced into your tanks is > > not zero and unless you were to inspect those nylon > > socks regularly, you > > probably wouldn't know until they plugged up. > > > > Pax, > > > > Ed Holyoke > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey > > <glcasey@adelphia.net> > > >However, > > there is a problem with using automotive roller vane > > or Gerotor pumps > > - they are not very tolerant of contamination. I > > think a nylon inlet > > "sock" just as used in automotive applications is > > necessary to protect > > the pump. The coarse screens typically used in > > aircraft aren't adequate > > for that purpose. > > > > Gary Casey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > browse > > Subscriptions page, > > FAQ, > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > > > Web Forums! > > > > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 01:32:56 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: segregation of wires . . .
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> >Comments/Questions: Bob, Via Matronics, your class and your book; I've >picked up that ALL antennas can be routed together and power lines can be >routed together. I plan to do so in my RV8, with separate audio routing >(ICM, etc). Does the antenna rule include FM for radio? I couldn't find >this anywhere, but assume this is the case - any notable exceptions to >other antennas? >Also, on Matronics site, I found a discussion on ground loop from CD >players, etc (I will have DVD/CD and FM radio), both checked out per >Matronics info to have case grounding. Isolating the FM is not too bad, >but the DVD/CD could be another matter. Would like your thoughts on how >much work I should put into this now vs. seeing if I have a problem - but >more difficult to do later. These radios typically ground to the instrument panel. Bring their outputs out on wires with shields grounded at the source end only and I think they'll be fine . . . Is there some experience with ground loop induced noise that was mitigated by insulating the radio chassis? I'd like to have a link to that discussion if you can provide it. I've never seen value added by providing separate wiring paths for systems EXCEPT where at least two of those systems were poorly designed such that one becomes an antagonist to the other. It takes two to tango, it takes two to have a noise problem. In terms of installation techniques, ground loops are the strongest potential couplers with vulnerability to radio frequency running a close tie with susceptibility to bus noises for second place. If systems performing to the industry standard practices, there is no value in segregating any wires into groups. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------- ( Experience and common sense cannot be ) ( replaced with policy and procedures. ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) -----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 04:37:37 PM PST US
    From: "Harold Kovac" <kayce33@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: What I learned today
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce33@earthlink.net> Why do we have to go on about who's more right than the other. Please start your own list and let Bob help the electrically challenged (me ) on his. No need to keep crowing that my way is better, or I'm smarter or my degree is better than yours....enough already. I don't care about that. What I'm looking for is info to glean thru, maybe ask a question. I need all the help I can getto try and determine the correct corse of action is difficult enough without havin to sort thru a dicussion about who's way is better. Let the readers on each list decide for themselves. Thank You, Harold Kovac ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:32 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > <emjones@charter.net> > > The Final Solution: > > (Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller) > > First they banned the discourteous, > And I didn't speak up because I was a follower. > Then they banned the insubordinate, > And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority. > Then they came for the passionately contentious, > And I didn't speak up because I was a follower. > Then they came for the independent technological thinkers, > And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker. > Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up. > > The REAL issue Bob, is that people who disagree are a thousand times more > valuable than those who merely follow--albeit the discussion could be more > civil--and we seek not to confuse the beginner too much. But you and I are > not above being jerks. None of your foils started their interchanges with > you in an intemperate tone. They react to what they consider your > intransigence and arrogance. And it makes them go bonkers. > > When I see that you are prepared to fight seemingly innocuous points like > my recent disagreement that "copper is a very active metal" (chapter 8), I > am nonplussed. You obviosly fight to defend territory. Hell, I just > thought I would do you a favor. Fool me once.... > > Bob, you are obviously a man of exceptional talents and a lot of people, > including me, and I would guess your difficult list characters, depend on > you and respect you. > > But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it. > > "What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of > their horrid history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful > lesson. They learned to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were > taught to believe or what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that > even truth must be scrutinized, it was a great discovery...." > -- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool" > > -------- > Eric M. Jones > www.PerihelionDesign.com > 113 Brentwood Drive > Southbridge, MA 01550 > (508) 764-2072 > emjones@charter.net > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61584#61584 > > >


    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
    Time: 04:49:20 PM PST US
    From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
    Subject: Temperature calibration.....
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net> Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a CHT sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and Tempilaq and others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified multimeteres (IR and contact) but wondered if there was something else out there I might have missed....read that as cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can get..... Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK


    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
    Time: 09:32:10 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Temperature calibration.....
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 02:06 PM 9/15/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net> > >Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a >CHT sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and >Tempilaq and others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified >multimeteres (IR and contact) but wondered if there was >something else out there I might have missed....read that as >cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can get..... > >Jim Baker >580.788.2779 >Elmore City, OK Last time I did one was about 30 years ago. Bought a nice fat 250W soldering iron used for copper roofing work. Machined a replacement 'tip' that instead of a chisel shape for soldering, it was cut off square, drilled and tapped for a cht sensor. Drilled and tapped another hole for attaching a thermocouple to the tip. Used a variac to set the soldering iron's temperature. This tool was quite handy for checking calibration of a system right on the airplane. You don't need a heater this big, the soldering iron was available and accepted solid copper, 7/8" tips so it was really easy to machine an adapter fitting out of aluminum rod stock. As I recall, the variac ran at about 50 volts to get 400F test temperatures. A quick and dirty substitute for this technique might be implemented by drilling and tapping an aluminum block say 1 x 1 x 2 inches to accept the CHT sensor. Fit a thermocouple to the block along with a ground wire to replace the ground that is "lost" when the sensor is removed from the cylinder head. When the sensor is fitted, electrically grounded and the thermocouple attached, use a small torch to heat the block until the thermocouple reads 500F or so, then wrap the whole assembly up in thick blanket of fiberglas insulation. The cooling rate in this "padded" environment will be very slow so that temperature of the sensor will be closely matched to that of the thermocouple. Just track the ship's CHT indicator trend against the thermocouple readout as it cools. 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 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
    Time: 09:50:29 PM PST US
    From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
    Subject: Re: Temperature calibration.....
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net> > You don't need a heater this big, the soldering iron > was available and accepted solid copper, 7/8" tips With that much copper, I'm in danger of being knocked off for drug money...... > A quick and dirty substitute for this technique might > be implemented by drilling and tapping an aluminum block > say 1 x 1 x 2 inches to accept the CHT sensor. Fit a thermocouple > to the block along with a ground wire to replace the > ground that is "lost" when the sensor is removed from > the cylinder head. I can hack that....got a nice big chunk of round Al stock just sittin' there awaiting the lathe. Thanks! Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --