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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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
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! --
|