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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | 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 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: 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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | 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 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | cant wire p-mags using a single switch? |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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
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! --
|