AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Tue 09/26/06


Total Messages Posted: 42



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 12:17 AM - Re: Eeeeek! Another fear and question. (Kingsley Hurst)
     2. 02:56 AM - Re: Avionics ground block (Bob Lee)
     3. 04:21 AM - Powering breakers (Dave)
     4. 05:08 AM - Re: Avionics ground block (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     5. 05:12 AM - Re: Avionics ground block (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     6. 05:19 AM - Re: Avionics ground block (Charlie Kuss)
     7. 05:40 AM - Re: Coax connector question (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
     8. 05:49 AM - Re: Powering breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     9. 05:54 AM - Re: Lap solder or D-Sub Pins (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    10. 06:35 AM - Re: Coax connector question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    11. 06:37 AM - Re: Avionics ground block (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    12. 08:08 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    13. 08:12 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    14. 08:13 AM - Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
    15. 08:24 AM - Re: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps (Bill Denton)
    16. 08:27 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Jim Baker)
    17. 08:49 AM - limiter vs breaker (Brian Meyette)
    18. 09:11 AM - Re: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps (Dave N6030X)
    19. 09:17 AM - Re: limiter vs breaker (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    20. 10:11 AM - Re: Powering breakers (B Tomm)
    21. 10:50 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Carlos Trigo)
    22. 11:33 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (George Braly)
    23. 11:50 AM - Re: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Rob Housman)
    24. 12:18 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (6440 Auto Parts)
    25. 12:50 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    26. 12:54 PM - Re: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps (Peter Laurence)
    27. 01:02 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (6440 Auto Parts)
    28. 01:07 PM - Re: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps (Peter Laurence)
    29. 01:39 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    30. 03:40 PM - Re: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Carlos Trigo)
    31. 04:37 PM - Re: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (A DeMarzo)
    32. 04:49 PM - cant wire p-mags using a single switch? (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com)
    33. 05:48 PM - Re: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Rob Housman)
    34. 06:15 PM - Re: Powering breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    35. 06:19 PM - Re: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    36. 06:33 PM - Re: Powering breakers (Jim Baker)
    37. 06:36 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    38. 06:49 PM - Re: cant wire p-mags using a single switch? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    39. 06:56 PM - Re: Re: Avionics ground block (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    40. 07:04 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (George Braly)
    41. 08:10 PM - Re: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
    42. 08:49 PM - Grounding Question (Dennis Johnson)
 
 
 


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: 12:17:47 AM PST US
    From: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
    Subject: Eeeeek! Another fear and question.
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au> > > I was able to design the system so that the relay > > was closed and bounce free before current flowed in the > > contacts. Further, I was able to shut off all current flow > > electronically before the relay contacts were opened. > >You have me with my thinking cap on now ! If the current didn't flow >before the contacts were closed and was shut off before the contacts >opened, what was the purpose in having a relay ? It seems you had >complete control over the current flow without the relay !! Just >wondering ?? Bob, Thank you for the explanation, I would never have worked it out myself. Much obliged Kingsley Do not archive


    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: 02:56:53 AM PST US
    From: "Bob Lee" <bob@flyboybob.com>
    Subject: Avionics ground block
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" <bob@flyboybob.com> 'lectric Bob, Thanks for taking the extra effort here. It seems that the physics are quite simple, it's the language that keeps getting in the way. Your new drawing makes it clear. Regards, not so "confused Bob"


    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: 04:21:18 AM PST US
    From: Dave <dave@abrahamson.net>
    Subject: Powering breakers
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave <dave@abrahamson.net> I am having trouble finding pictures of the various ways to provide power to breakers. I am using Bob's Z12 architecture and currently running power to the alternator, backup alternator, and 3 other breakers via a fuse block from B&C. This obviously means that these circuits are protected by a fuse and breaker, and tests such as the one for the voltage regulator burn the fuse out before the breaker gets to pop. I would appreciate ideas, and pictures, on how to set up a copper bar or other material to power these breakers. BTW, testing a 2A breaker with a 10A ATO fuse in the circuit still burns the fuse first.


    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: 05:08:49 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Avionics ground block
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 05:55 AM 9/26/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" <bob@flyboybob.com> > >'lectric Bob, > >Thanks for taking the extra effort here. It seems that the physics are >quite simple, it's the language that keeps getting in the way. Your new >drawing makes it clear. Pictures DO help. The art of teaching is to figure out ways around communications barriers. I was in the video time base corrector business for a few years in the late seventies. For a time, we were re-branding our time base correctors for AKAI. I spent a week in California showing their technicians how the things worked and how to troubleshoot them. Their English was poor and my Japanese was non-existent but between our mutual understanding of television signals and the relatively universal language of schematics, we managed to share a lot of useful data. I need to re-format the drawing into something other than .pdf files generated directly from AutoCAD. The 300K document is a bit of a hog to download! Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ---------------------------------------------------------


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:12:54 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Avionics ground block
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 04:40 PM 9/26/2006 +1200, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carl Morgan" ><zk-vii@rvproject.gen.nz> > >Hi Bob, > >This leads to a question we have had, we have a 'mid-ship ground forest of >tabs' aft of the spar with a dedicated AWG8 between it and the firewall >ground 'single point'. Would you advocate insulating the mid ship forest >from the main fuselage or just bolting it up to the metal sub structure? > >Thanks, > >Carl No, in fact in your metal airplane, the mid-ship ground block is just a congregation of the otherwise scattered "local" grounds on the left side of the drawing. There's no value in adding any wires between the mid-ship ground block and the firewall mounted grounds. The resistance of the airframe will be a tiny fraction of that offered by the jumper wire. Hence the wire does not significantly alter/enhance the ground system. Bob . . .


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:19:04 AM PST US
    From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
    Subject: Avionics ground block
    At 03:45 PM 9/25/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckollsr@cox.net> > >At 12:08 PM 9/25/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" <bob@flyboybob.com> >> >>Hey 'lectric Bob, >> >>You wrote: >> >><< >>The important feature of the ground system that prevents >>ground loop noise problems is that no single potential >>victim system grounds in more than one place. I.e. you can >>have a "string" of grounds that need to be "single point" >>for the systems that use them. >> >> >> >>When the teacher says "The Important feature ..." it is important to make >>sure I understand. Could you please say that again in a different way so >>that I might understand? I don't see a string of grounds evering being >>'"single point" for the systems that use them.' Doesn't a string of grounds >>connect a device to the previous and the next device in the string? So by >>definition, the string can't be single point. I've just proved the teacher >>wrong so I'm very leary of my logic. Where's my bad ASSumption? > > I've added a third sheet to Z-15 which you can see at: > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z15-3.pdf > > Look this over and see if the words I used before make more > sense . . . > > Bob . . . Bob, Am I missing something or simply misunderstanding your statement about the web link above having "3 sheets"? I only see two pages on the link above. Charlie Kuss


    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: 05:40:08 AM PST US
    From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Coax connector question
    In a message dated 9/25/2006 9:23:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, wrmaxwell@bigpond.com writes: > Can someone educate me about co-ax connectors, so I might at least form a > picture of what I should be using? I expect there's a rule set of when to > use what. > > Many thanks > Neil ======================== Neil: Go to GOOGLE, select PICTURES and type in BNC ... You will get lots of hits. Barry "Chop'd Liver" "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third time." Yamashiada


    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: 05:49:36 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Powering breakers
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 07:19 AM 9/26/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave <dave@abrahamson.net> > >I am having trouble finding pictures of the various ways to provide power >to breakers. I am using Bob's Z12 architecture and currently running >power to the alternator, backup alternator, and 3 other breakers via a >fuse block from B&C. This obviously means that these circuits are >protected by a fuse and breaker, and tests such as the one for the voltage >regulator burn the fuse out before the breaker gets to pop. I would >appreciate ideas, and pictures, on how to set up a copper bar or other >material to power these breakers. BTW, testing a 2A breaker with a 10A >ATO fuse in the circuit still burns the fuse first. Fuses are MUCH faster than breakers . . . that's why they're never shown used together in our published drawings. Recall that breakers are generally installed side-by-side and fed from a "bus". The bus is hard-wired into the system like all other busses with no need nor benefit from upstream fuses. This is an old but typical breaker installation on a bus bar along with some notations on how NOT to configure the installation. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_3.jpg Bob . . .


    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: 05:54:37 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Lap solder or D-Sub Pins
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:27 PM 9/25/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net> > >Bob: >I am in the process of wiring some K type thermal couples for my EGT and CHT >gage, the UBG-16 from Electronics International. The problem is the supplied >thermal couple type K wire is 6' and I really only need 3' or so between the >gage and the sensor. The ends of the wires came with pre-crimped 1/4" >fast-on connectors. The cable may be shorted as needed per EI and new >connectors crimped on. I was thinking cutting the wires to length and then >cutting off the mating connector and putting on some solid D-sub pins and >cover with heat shrink in order to avoid the "snake swallowed the mouse" >look. However, I'm wondering if just a "lap joint" as you show on your shop >articles isn't perhaps more robust for the job. I know that thermal couple K >wire is different from copper somehow, but can they be soldered like normal >copper wires? This will all be under the cowling. Type J thermocouples will solder nicely with 63/37 with a reasonably active flux like Kester "44" or "285". You can try whatever solder you have to see if you can first "tin" the bare strand(s) and then twist them together and see how the solder flows over the twisted wires. Type K is best silver soldered or you can use the crimped d-sub pins mated together under a sleeve of heat-shrink as a splicing technique. Finally, consider cutting the existing fast-on terminals off, shortening the wires and installing new terminals. Use PIDG terminals and a ratchet-handled installation tool. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf for additional info on thermocouples. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ---------------------------------------------------------


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:35:26 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Coax connector question
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:43 PM 9/25/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil Clayton <harvey4@earthlink.net> > >I'm looking to connect my radio and transponder cables to their respective >instruments (ICOM A200 and Garmin 320A). > >I used RG 58 cable for the radio antennas and RG 400 for the transponder >antenna. > >When I look at available co-ax connectors there seem to be a host of >different ones - thread on, push on, screw on, compression, "turn and >lock"....I'm totally confused. > >Can someone educate me about co-ax connectors, so I might at least form a >picture of what I should be using? I expect there's a rule set of when to >use what. Check through the links below. These describe the materials, techniques and tools useful to the task of acquiring and installing BNC connectors on your feedlines. http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Coax_Stripper/coaxstrip.html http://aeroelectric.com/articles/BNC_Rt_Angle/BNC_Rt_Angle.html http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf http://aeroelectric.com/articles/coaxconn/coaxconn.htm http://steinair.com/connectors.htm#dsub http://tinyurl.com/l4no7 http://www.bandc.biz/BNCcrimptool.html 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 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: 06:37:31 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Avionics ground block
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> >> >> I've added a third sheet to Z-15 which you can see at: >> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z15-3.pdf >> >> Look this over and see if the words I used before make more >> sense . . . >> >> Bob . . . > > >Bob, > Am I missing something or simply misunderstanding your statement about > the web link above having "3 sheets"? I only see two pages on the link above. >Charlie Kuss Z-15 in the 'Conection is already a two-sheet figure. The stuff I just published will be incorporated into Revision 12 as the third sheet. 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: 08:08:06 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Mogas versus 100LL
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:02 PM 9/25/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com> > > > >> It's been an interesting thread . . . but never did see > any words that were trading off the features of Mogas > vs. 100LL . . . I WAS interested because I don't understand > how or why they would be compared to each other.<< > >Bob, > >30% of the AVGAS is burned in 70% of the fleet aircraft. >70% of the AVGAS is burned in 30% of the fleet aircraft. > >The 30% of the fleet aircraft that burns 70% of the AVGAS use engines >that REQUIRE a fuel with the octane characteristics of Avgas. > >If you want to fly higher than about 6000 feet, 100% of the fleet >requires fuel with the vapor pressure characteristics of Avgas. Not sure I understand the above . . . but yes, Mogas can't be dropped into many airplanes without a new plan and it may well be that no new plans are possible for some airplanes. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. Since it's not easy (and perhaps not cost-attractive compared to what's available/popular now) a paradigm shift will be needed to keep many of the current fleet flying at a cost the owners are willing to pay. The fuel will be different, the fuel system will be different and there may be operating limitations. But one thing is sure: how we THINK the magic bullet(s) are shaping up today is probably wrong. Bob . . .


    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: 08:12:52 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Mogas versus 100LL
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:28 PM 9/25/2006 -0500, you wrote: >And let me add that after attending the Advanced Pilot Seminar last >weekend and actually seeing exactly how MOGAS affects our current engines >(watching the real time data of an engine running it), I'm dropping any >inclination of using that stuff in any real aviation engine. Regardless >of how many tankfuls one may have run through their engine, and how well >it has performed, we're just not ready to think that MOGAS is better. In >time, when our engine systems become smarter, I'll welcome its use and >hope they change the smell of it. >Al > Ominous words my friend but not very enlightening. I don't think anyone has said that mogas is "better" . . . it would be just super-cool with most owners if we could buy AV80 a the FBO pump. The philosophy of current mogas usage suggests it's an acceptable substitute for some situations demonstrated by no small amount of research, flight testing and field history. Can you share any downside data you've been made aware of? 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 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: 08:13:13 AM PST US
    From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
    Subject: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps
    Howdy, Listers- Can anyone recommend a source for the rectangular rocker switches I've seen on many aircraft (illuminated preferably with LEDs) with the legends engraved or printed on them? I'd also like to find some square lamps of similar appearance to use as annunciator lamps. What would be perfect would be lamps that are also illuminated pushbuttons (momentary) so they can be wired with a push-to-test feature. No joy on usual suspects (ACS, Wicks, and WAY too much time googling, which is getting to be like "fishing for trout in a landfill"- even tried some street rod sites, etc.) Thanks Mark Phillips do not archive


    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: 08:24:25 AM PST US
    From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
    Subject: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps
    Try here... http://www.aerocraftparts.com/Categories.aspx?Category=38940ec0-b260-4e9f-a2 3c-b80ff8e89c67 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fiveonepw@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:12 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps Howdy, Listers- Can anyone recommend a source for the rectangular rocker switches I've seen on many aircraft (illuminated preferably with LEDs) with the legends engraved or printed on them? I'd also like to find some square lamps of similar appearance to use as annunciator lamps. What would be perfect would be lamps that are also illuminated pushbuttons (momentary) so they can be wired with a push-to-test feature. No joy on usual suspects (ACS, Wicks, and WAY too much time googling, which is getting to be like "fishing for trout in a landfill"- even tried some street rod sites, etc.) Thanks Mark Phillips do not archive


    Message 16


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:27:00 AM PST US
    From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
    Subject: Mogas versus 100LL
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net> > Not sure I understand the above . . . but yes, Mogas can't > be dropped into many airplanes without a new plan and it > may well be that no new plans are possible for some > airplanes. True. That's why you'll see that some engines are capable but the airframe is the limiting factor (fuel system design, line routings, etc). Most MOGAS STCs address not just the engine but the system as well. http://www.eaa.org/education/fuel/autogas_vs_avgas.pdf Now if you're an OBAM, do as you will. > The fuel will be different, the fuel system will be different > and there may be operating limitations. But one thing is sure: > how we THINK the magic bullet(s) are shaping up today is probably > wrong. There is no inherent difficulty in running an aircraft engine on MOGAS if the system can be instrumented, monitored, and adjusted to follow the fuel's inherent characteristics. Cars do it all the time (yeah, prunes and pears) with lean burn, altitude and load adjustments. It can be done. Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK


    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: 08:49:13 AM PST US
    From: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net>
    Subject: limiter vs breaker
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net> In the application of the alternator Battery lead, is there some advantage of a current limiter over a breaker? --


    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: 09:11:07 AM PST US
    From: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
    Subject: Re: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/pki/ http://www.e-switch.com/types/push.html http://www.electromechcomp.com/products/index.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=12 Dave Morris At 10:11 AM 9/26/2006, you wrote: >Howdy, Listers- > >Can anyone recommend a source for the rectangular rocker switches >I've seen on many aircraft (illuminated preferably with LEDs) with >the legends engraved or printed on them? I'd also like to find some >square lamps of similar appearance to use as annunciator >lamps. What would be perfect would be lamps that are also >illuminated pushbuttons (momentary) so they can be wired with a >push-to-test feature. > >No joy on usual suspects (ACS, Wicks, and WAY too much time >googling, which is getting to be like "fishing for trout in a >landfill"- even tried some street rod sites, etc.) > >Thanks >Mark Phillips do not archive >


    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: 09:17:52 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: limiter vs breaker
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 11:47 AM 9/26/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" ><brianpublic2@starband.net> > >In the application of the alternator Battery lead, is there some advantage >of a current limiter over a breaker? The real question to be asked/answered is why would you consider a breaker and where would you mount it? The philosophy behind the Z-figures includes a design goal to get fat wires (noisy) out of the cockpit. This philosophy has been adopted on a number of TC aircraft. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Firewall_Ckt_Protection.jpg If you move b-leads out of the cockpit, would you use a breaker out on the firewall . . . or a limiter? Since the breaker is more complex and less comfortable in the under-the-cowl environment, everyone I know uses limiters. Bob. . .


    Message 20


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:11:35 AM PST US
    From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
    Subject: Powering breakers
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net> Bob, Is this common bar for connecting breakers rally the best way? I have seen this before in TC aircraft but think of it as an example as what's wrong with the methods/materials of TC aircraft. You would never see exposed conductors like this in automotive, would you? What is the crash worthiness of these exposed conductors? It seems too easy to bend and short to the nearby structure or something else get pushed against it. The copper bar should be insulated in my opinion. The question is which is the best way to wire the breakers for reliability while keeping the conductors insulated? Bevan RV7A finish kit -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:48 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powering breakers --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" --> <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 07:19 AM 9/26/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave <dave@abrahamson.net> > >I am having trouble finding pictures of the various ways to provide >power to breakers. I am using Bob's Z12 architecture and currently >running power to the alternator, backup alternator, and 3 other >breakers via a fuse block from B&C. This obviously means that these >circuits are protected by a fuse and breaker, and tests such as the one >for the voltage regulator burn the fuse out before the breaker gets to >pop. I would appreciate ideas, and pictures, on how to set up a copper >bar or other material to power these breakers. BTW, testing a 2A >breaker with a 10A ATO fuse in the circuit still burns the fuse first. Fuses are MUCH faster than breakers . . . that's why they're never shown used together in our published drawings. Recall that breakers are generally installed side-by-side and fed from a "bus". The bus is hard-wired into the system like all other busses with no need nor benefit from upstream fuses. This is an old but typical breaker installation on a bus bar along with some notations on how NOT to configure the installation. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_3.jpg Bob . . .


    Message 21


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:50:14 AM PST US
    From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
    Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
    ready to think that MOGAS is better. In time, when our engine systems become smarter, I'll welcome its use and hope they change the smell of it. By the way, why do you call MOGAS to the gasoline for cars? Regards Carlos


    Message 22


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:33:20 AM PST US
    Subject: Mogas versus 100LL
    From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com> >Bob, > >30% of the AVGAS is burned in 70% of the fleet aircraft. >70% of the AVGAS is burned in 30% of the fleet aircraft. > >The 30% of the fleet aircraft that burns 70% of the AVGAS use engines >that REQUIRE a fuel with the octane characteristics of Avgas. > >If you want to fly higher than about 6000 feet, 100% of the fleet >requires fuel with the vapor pressure characteristics of Avgas. Not sure I understand the above . . . but yes, Mogas can't be dropped into many airplanes without a new plan and it may well be that no new plans are possible for some airplanes. *********************** Bob, One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS is the vapor pressure issue. This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather. It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly. It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer. If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel - - we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the vapor pressure issue. It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it will still be a special fuel - - and not car gas. Regards, George


    Message 23


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:50:04 AM PST US
    From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
    Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
    It is an idiomatic use of English (that probably wont translate to Portuguese). AViation GAS is contracted to AVGAS and MOtor GAS becomes MOGAS. In English we probably use the word MOTOR in this contraction instead of AUTOMOBILE or AUTO, and GAS rather than FUEL, simply because it sounds better to say MOGAS rather than MOFUEL and there is one less syllable than AUTOFUEL. We also would rather be consistent and call both gas instead of calling one gas and the other fuel. As is typical for spoken English, we say MOGAS only when referring to the fuel when it is used in an aircraft engine. When we use it in a car it is just plain gas. Best regards, Rob Housman A070 Airframe complete Irvine, CA DO NOT ARCHIVE -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:46 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mogas versus 100LL ready to think that MOGAS is better. In time, when our engine systems become smarter, I'll welcome its use and hope they change the smell of it. By the way, why do you call MOGAS to the gasoline for cars? Regards Carlos


    Message 24


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:18:36 PM PST US
    From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
    Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com> I suppose it would'nt need an STC if it we're an experimental aircraft. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:31 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com> > >>Bob, >> >>30% of the AVGAS is burned in 70% of the fleet aircraft. >>70% of the AVGAS is burned in 30% of the fleet aircraft. >> >>The 30% of the fleet aircraft that burns 70% of the AVGAS use engines >>that REQUIRE a fuel with the octane characteristics of Avgas. >> >>If you want to fly higher than about 6000 feet, 100% of the fleet >>requires fuel with the vapor pressure characteristics of Avgas. > > Not sure I understand the above . . . but yes, Mogas can't > be dropped into many airplanes without a new plan and it > may well be that no new plans are possible for some > airplanes. > > > *********************** > > Bob, > > One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS is > the vapor pressure issue. > > This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather. > > It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly. > > It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very > much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer. > > If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel - > - we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the > vapor pressure issue. > > It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the > dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it will > still be a special fuel - - and not car gas. > > Regards, George > > >


    Message 25


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:50:02 PM PST US
    Subject: Mogas versus 100LL
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Bob, One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS is the vapor pressure issue. This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather. It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly. It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer. If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel - - we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the vapor pressure issue. It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it will still be a special fuel - - and not car gas. Regards, George _Nope I can't agree with that George. It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it currently is. To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank thru some restictions to gurantee your early death. The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the coolest place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e INSIDE the fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank. My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000 feet...Unlikely. The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you get struck by lightening? For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I would agree its hardly ideal though. Frank


    Message 26


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:54:30 PM PST US
    From: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net>
    Subject: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps
    _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fiveonepw@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps Howdy, Listers- Can anyone recommend a source for the rectangular rocker switches I've seen on many aircraft (illuminated preferably with LEDs) with the legends engraved or printed on them? I'd also like to find some square lamps of similar appearance to use as annunciator lamps. What would be perfect would be lamps that are also illuminated pushbuttons (momentary) so they can be wired with a push-to-test feature. http://www.carlingtech.com/ http://www.nkkswitches.com/ http://order.waytekwire.com/ <http://order.waytekwire.com/CGI-BIN/LANSAWEB?WEBEVENT+L0C85B1796634830055E1 042+M37+ENG> http://www.engravers.net/rocker-switches/aml34-36.htm Thanks Mark Phillips do not archive


    Message 27


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:02:57 PM PST US
    From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
    Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com> So Frank are you still getting 6.7 gph running lop ? Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > > Bob, > > One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS is > the vapor pressure issue. > > This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather. > > It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly. > > It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very > much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer. > > If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel - > - we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the > vapor pressure issue. > > It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the > dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it will > still be a special fuel - - and not car gas. > > Regards, George > > > _Nope I can't agree with that George. > > It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel > system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it > currently is. > > To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good > reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at > modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be > reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is > bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank thru > some restictions to gurantee your early death. > > The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put > them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the coolest > place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e INSIDE the > fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank. > > My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I > gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000 > feet...Unlikely. > > The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you get > struck by lightening? > > For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I would > agree its hardly ideal though. > > Frank > > >


    Message 28


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:07:18 PM PST US
    From: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net>
    Subject: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps
    Mark Look up Stanley's MU series super bright LED light bar modules Peter _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fiveonepw@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rocker switches/Annunciator Lamps Howdy, Listers- Can anyone recommend a source for the rectangular rocker switches I've seen on many aircraft (illuminated preferably with LEDs) with the legends engraved or printed on them? I'd also like to find some square lamps of similar appearance to use as annunciator lamps. What would be perfect would be lamps that are also illuminated pushbuttons (momentary) so they can be wired with a push-to-test feature. No joy on usual suspects (ACS, Wicks, and WAY too much time googling, which is getting to be like "fishing for trout in a landfill"- even tried some street rod sites, etc.) Thanks Mark Phillips do not archive


    Message 29


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:39:10 PM PST US
    Subject: Mogas versus 100LL
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> I tried it on Sunday morning briefly and yes 6.7GPH at about 135 to 140 knots IAS is what I saw...runnig 2300rpm and 22"MP...i think? I have done very little LOP because I don't have my injection system balanced yet and I'm still running hard for break in...I.e running 75 to 85% power which means 100F ROP...Actually a bit more cus I go over 400F CHT on my #4 cylinder. That needs to be worked on...>Still running 100LL for now. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 6440 Auto Parts Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:00 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" --> <sales@6440autoparts.com> So Frank are you still getting 6.7 gph running lop ? Randy


    Message 30


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:40:24 PM PST US
    From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
    Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
    Thanks Rob for your crystal clear explanation! So, every MOGAS is unleaded fuel, right? Hence the vapor pressure problem, is it? Can I conclude that all we need is to find an additive other than lead, to have the ideal aviation fuel? Carlos ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Housman To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:46 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mogas versus 100LL It is an idiomatic use of English (that probably won't translate to Portuguese). AViation GAS is contracted to AVGAS and MOtor GAS becomes MOGAS. In English we probably use the word MOTOR in this contraction instead of AUTOMOBILE or AUTO, and GAS rather than FUEL, simply because it sounds better to say MOGAS rather than MOFUEL and there is one less syllable than AUTOFUEL. We also would rather be consistent and call both gas instead of calling one gas and the other fuel. As is typical for spoken English, we say MOGAS only when referring to the fuel when it is used in an aircraft engine. When we use it in a car it is just plain gas. Best regards, Rob Housman A070 Airframe complete Irvine, CA


    Message 31


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:37:32 PM PST US
    From: "A DeMarzo" <planepubs@ev1.net>
    Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
    auto MO bile GAS On 09/26/2006 12:46:24 PM, Carlos Trigo (trigo@mail.telepac.pt) wrote: > ready to think that MOGAS is better. In time, when our engine systems > become smarter, I'll welcome its use and hope they change the smell of it. > By the way, why do you call MOGAS to the gasoline for cars? > > Regards > Carlos Do not archive


    Message 32


  • 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: 04:49:08 PM PST US
    Subject: cant wire p-mags using a single switch?
    From: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com This was posted on the Vans airforce forum recently by an individual that could not get his p-mags working. After having sent it back to the factory, this is what he reports: "My dead P mag worked great back at the factory. Then I had a brain wave. I had tried to combine the off-power fail test-Run modes onto one DPDT switch. Unfortunatly there is a momentary change in state when you go from OFF to one of the other states. What happens is the Pmag becomes ungrounded before it gets power. This does not work...You have to have a seperate switch for the PMag power fail.Preferably a normally closed momentary switch" After a request from a reader asking for further elaboration, this was the reply: "Its not when you lose ground...The P lead is UNgrounded in flight. Its no big deal in terms of flying. I.e when your cruising along the PMag will be ungrounded....If it then loses power it will operate as normally. I.e not an issue. The problem is if when starting you Unground the Plead before you apply power...The Pmag then won't work...At least mine didn't. As this will never happen in flight its a non issue. The only reason it was an issue for me was that I combined the OFF-TEST-Run modes onto a single switch. You cannot do this because no matter how you wire the switch you will always unground the Plead before you apply power. Long story short you need a seperate switch to test the power fail mode...or pull the CB or whatever. Right now I just have the power connected permanently...I.e no way to test it (unless I pull the fuse) . I want to find a normally closed momentary switch that I can't leave in the OFF postion...Haven't found one yet." As I have wired my p-mags using a single switch per Bobs Aeroelectric Connection, but have not start tested the engine yet, I am concerned. Does the above make any sense? Surely someone has successfully followed the 'Connection schematic before and NOT had this problem ? Erich Weaver


    Message 33


  • 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: 05:48:26 PM PST US
    From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
    Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
    That works for me. Best regards, Rob Housman A070 Airframe complete Irvine, CA -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of A DeMarzo Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mogas versus 100LL auto MO bile GAS On 09/26/2006 12:46:24 PM, Carlos Trigo ( trigo@mail.telepac.pt <mailto:trigo@mail.telepac.pt> ) wrote: > ready to think that MOGAS is better. In time, when our engine systems > become smarter, I'll welcome its use and hope they change the smell of it. > By the way, why do you call MOGAS to the gasoline for cars? > > Regards > Carlos Do not archive


    Message 34


  • 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: 06:15:22 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Powering breakers
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 10:09 AM 9/26/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net> > >Bob, > >Is this common bar for connecting breakers rally the best way? I have seen >this before in TC aircraft but think of it as an example as what's wrong >with the methods/materials of TC aircraft. You would never see exposed >conductors like this in automotive, would you? What is the crash worthiness >of these exposed conductors? It seems too easy to bend and short to the >nearby structure or something else get pushed against it. Okay. Get out your hammer, crowbar, and hacksaw. Crawl behind the breaker panel of any TC aircraft and pick a piece of hardware you're going to choose to effect any fault you want to hypothesize. What does it take to make it happen . . . and what's the likelihood that this will happen during operation of the aircraft. > The copper bar >should be insulated in my opinion. The question is which is the best way to >wire the breakers for reliability while keeping the conductors insulated? Any way that meets your fancy. I don't know of many folks who do it. The same concerns apply to straps used in other places. Examples are seen in http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Contactor_Interconnect . . . and only in #5 did the builder choose to put cocoons around the exposed straps. I've never seen it done on a panel of closely spaced breakers. There are some things on airplanes (like spinning propellers) that have been adjudged "reasonably safe" by virtue of controlling things that might come into contact with it. As to crashworthiness, the goal is to open battery contactors so as to minimize the amount of hot wiring everywhere whether or not it was insulated before the crash. If your airframe is so badly folded as to put an exposed bus bar at risk, likelihood of of that bus bar being the one thing that gets you killed is exceedingly remote. However, if you have concerns about the exposed conductors and the $time$ to address them, there's nothing that prevents you from devising whatever insulating techniques to assuage those concerns. One of my favorites is the fuse-block. Everything between fuse slots is already enclosed as supplied. Bob . . .


    Message 35


  • 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: 06:19:34 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 11:35 PM 9/26/2006 +0100, you wrote: >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"> >Thanks Rob >for your crystal clear explanation! > >So, every MOGAS is unleaded fuel, right? >Hence the vapor pressure problem, is it? >Can I conclude that all we need is to find an additive other than lead, to >have the ideal aviation fuel? It isn't the TEL (tetraethyl lead) that controls vapor pressure but the ingredients in the mix of hydrocarbons used to make up the fuel. It's analogous to evaporation rates. Blow a breeze over hands wet with water produces a cooling effect that ultimately dries the hands. Blow the same breeze over hands wet with alcohol and the cooling effects are stronger, the drying rate faster. Alcohol has a much higher vapor pressure than water. Bob . . .


    Message 36


  • 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: 06:33:37 PM PST US
    From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
    Subject: Powering breakers
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net> > Okay. Get out your hammer, crowbar, and hacksaw. Crawl > behind the breaker panel of any TC aircraft and pick a > piece of hardware you're going to choose to effect any > fault you want to hypothesize. What does it take to make > it happen . . . and what's the likelihood that this will > happen during operation of the aircraft. One would just have to lie upside down under the panel of my Bellanca Viking to utter, "The horror! The Horror!!!!" Downright ugly...but functional for 35 years now....... Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK


    Message 37


  • 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: 06:36:27 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Mogas versus 100LL
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 02:46 PM 9/26/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" ><frank.hinde@hp.com> > > >Bob, > >One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS is >the vapor pressure issue. > >This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather. > >It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly. > >It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very >much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer. > >If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel - >- we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the >vapor pressure issue. > >It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the >dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it will >still be a special fuel - - and not car gas. > >Regards, George > > >_Nope I can't agree with that George. > >It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel >system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it >currently is. > >To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good >reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at >modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be >reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is >bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank thru >some restictions to gurantee your early death. > >The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put >them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the coolest >place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e INSIDE the >fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank. > >My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I >gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000 >feet...Unlikely. > >The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you get >struck by lightening? > >For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I would >agree its hardly ideal though. Which goes directly to the statements I offered earlier. There's an obvious need to discover and understand limits to what ever fuel is proposed and then craft a system that overcomes those limits. Having the fuel delivery system pressurized from tank to injectors is one solution that comes to mind for overcoming the vapor lock issues. No doubt other problems will arise too. For 99.9% of us, we'll have to wait until someone in the 0.1% (that were too dumb to know it couldn't be done) will offer the next greatest thing. We'll all have the choice of trying to adapt to the new order . . . or sit in our airplanes with dry tanks waiting for someone to drive by with some 100LL. The big picture for this discussion isn't whether MOGAS in its present form is or will ever be the replacement for 100LL. The big picture shows what systems can be crafted to accommodate the least expensive and most environmentally friendly fuel for acquisition and operating costs we're willing to pay. The fuel MIGHT be MOGAS, it might not. The airplane WILL be different in significant ways. If we're lucky, the technology will be suitable to retrofit older machines lest they ALL be relegated to museums or recycled for beer cans. Bob . . .


    Message 38


  • 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: 06:49:15 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: cant wire p-mags using a single switch?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 04:47 PM 9/26/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com > > >This was posted on the Vans airforce forum recently by an individual that >could not get his p-mags working. After having sent it back to the >factory, this is what he reports: > <snip> >As I have wired my p-mags using a single switch per Bobs Aeroelectric >Connection, but have not start tested the engine yet, I am concerned. Does >the above make any sense? Surely someone has successfully followed the >'Connection schematic before and NOT had this problem ? The anecdote quoted doesn't offer much clarity for the issue because there are no schematics offered nor part numbers of the switches used. The switches shown in the Z-figures are progressive transfer devices that offer specific performance in terms of what happens each time the toggle is moved. Further, the schematics I've published are CONTRARY to factory recommended p-mag wiring which is discussed on page Z-6 of: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf The reason for the variance is that from the pilot's perspective, I want to know that a P-mag's internal alternator is functioning during run-up so moving the p-mag switch from full up to mid position needs to interrupt battery power. Wiring as shown does NOT offer an ability to power up a p-mag with the ignition function disabled for the purpose of using built in timing tones or setting the prop for hand cranking. From the systems designer perspective, I chose to favor the pilot and add the third maintenance switch so that rarely conducted operations that use battery power with the ignition function disabled may be accomplished. Bob . . .


    Message 39


  • 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: 06:56:44 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Avionics ground block
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 02:07 PM 9/25/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jekyll" <rcitjh@aol.com> > >Bob: > >Thanks much. The 3rd page cleared it right up for me. We have both >fulfilled our purpose - you have taught and I have learned! . . . then today has been a good day. Bob . . .


    Message 40


  • 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: 07:04:55 PM PST US
    Subject: Mogas versus 100LL
    From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com> >>_Nope I can't agree with that George. It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it currently is.<< In an ideal world in which the 90% of the general aviation fleet that is already flying were able to have their entire fuel system including the wet wing fuel tanks re-designed - - then your disagreement with the problem and issues that we are discussing would, in my opinion, be well founded. But the reality is that the "fuel problem" is not a problem whose solution is going to be decided by the experimental community's desires. The reality is that a solution to the "lead in the fuel" issue will need to be resolved in a manner that is consistent with, among others, the following considerations: 1) It will leave no engine in common use "on the ground"; 2) It will not require major redesign of aircraft fuel, electrical, or plumbing systems; 3) It will not require that any engines be "de-rated" due to lower octane; 4) It will not require re-certification of whole groups of aircraft or restrict them to benign environmental conditions (ie, you can still takeoff from Bullhead City, Az, in August.) The concept of using "in tank" electric boost pumps (however desirable and however good an idea that may be) is inconsistent with 2, above. Regards, George


    Message 41


  • 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: 08:10:55 PM PST US
    From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com In a message dated 9/26/06 1:54:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, trigo@mail.telepac.pt writes: > By the way, why do you call MOGAS to the gasoline for cars? > > Regards > Carlos ================= Just to confuse people. Probably from autoMObile. Just like AvGas is AViation gas Barry "Chop'd Liver" "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third time." Yamashiada


    Message 42


  • 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: 08:49:20 PM PST US
    From: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net>
    Subject: Grounding Question
    Hi Bob, Thanks for the very helpful new drawing on grounding. It motivated me to ask a question that I've been wrestling with for some time. I'm installing a Grand Rapids Engine Information System (EIS) in my composite OBAM aircraft. Many of the engine sensors attach directly to the engine itself and therefore ground to the engine. The EIS instruction manual says to ground the EIS module to the engine ground. So far, so good. But the oil pressure sensor is attached to a rubber hose, electrically isolated from the engine, and I was planning to ground it to the engine side of the firewall, to the "G2 FWL" ground block. The manifold pressure sensor is on the cockpit side of the firewall and I was planning to ground it to the avionics ground block. The outside air temperature sensor will ground to the "G3 PNL" ground block. (There are many more "electro-whizzies" connected to the EIS module, but the ones mentioned illustrate the point.) Each individual sensor is grounded to a single spot. But will the EIS module, to which they all connect, see the four separate grounds as a ground loop? Thanks, Dennis Johnson Lancair Legacy, wiring the panel




    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! --