Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:11 AM - Re: Keyed push to start switch source? (B Tomm)
2. 04:24 AM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (Kevin Horton)
3. 06:53 AM - Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 07:07 AM - Re: Keyed push to start switch source? (LarryMcFarland)
5. 07:17 AM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (Bob C.)
6. 07:40 AM - instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) ()
7. 07:55 AM - Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
8. 09:43 AM - Re: Keyed push to start switch source? (Doug Fischer)
9. 10:28 AM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (Kevin Horton)
10. 12:18 PM - Is Marker Beacon needed with WAAS equipped GPS? (rodney smith)
11. 12:42 PM - Is Marker Beacon needed with WAAS equipped GPS? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
12. 04:45 PM - Re: Keyed push to start switch source? (Larry Rosen)
13. 07:44 PM - 2-10 Switch (Dick Fisher)
14. 10:00 PM - Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage regulator failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 10:32 PM - Re: Re: "Broken and Garbled" (Additional data) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 10:35 PM - Re: The D-25 essential buss diode (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 10:51 PM - Re: 2-10 Switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 11:46 PM - Winterville, NC Seminar date set (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: | Keyed push to start switch source? |
Larry,
What software did you use to do your wiring diagrams? Beautiful!
Bevan
RV7A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LarryMcFarland
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Keyed push to start switch source?
--> <larry@macsmachine.com>
Grant,
I had the same need for security, what with curious kids today. I purchased
a good one from O'Rielly's Automotive as a stock item and it didn't give me
any problems at all. You'd have an accessory terminal that is useful for
auxiliary lighting as well.
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/controllinkages/full/panelinflight(2).gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/electrical/full/primary-wiring.gif
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Grant Neilson wrote:
> --> <grantneilson@telus.net>
>
> I'm going to be putting in a dual electronic ignition, dual battery
> setup and in order to maintain separate redundant ignition systems
> will have separate ignition toggle switches. I could use a simple push
> to start switch to the starter contactor, but would like the albeit
> minor security of a keyed switch. Does anyone know of a source for a
> keyed SPST momentary push to start or turn to start switch? It should
> be able to handle at least 5 amps at 14 volts DC. Thanks in advance for
any info.
>
> Do not archive
>
> Grant Neilson
> RV9A, finishing
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
TSOs have been issued.
Kevin Horton
On 5 Jan 2007, at 22:05, Bret Smith wrote:
> <smithhb@tds.net>
>
> See http://www.grtavionics.com/documents/Horizon%20System%20Flyer.pdf
>
> "The addition of the internal GPS receiver eliminates the need for an
> external
> GPS, or may be used as a backup to your primary GPS. Available in two
> versions. The standard WAAS GPS module is perfect for VFR use, or
> as backup
> to an external GPS. The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity
> monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR
> GPS
> TSO C129 and C146."
>
> Standard WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $450
> RAIM-Equipped WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $750
>
>
> Bret Smith
> RV-9A (91314)
> Mineral Bluff, GA
> www.FlightInnovations.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bill Boyd
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:52 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>
> --> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>
> My understanding from talking to them is that it would be fully
> approach-legal in its final form. How they plan to accomplish that
> "legislatively" I am less clear on, but they convinced me that, for my
> purposes (IFR with gps approach capability), their unit plus an
> SL30 would
> completely do away with the need for a 430 or 530 in my panel.
> Maybe someone (else) from the GRT_EFIS group will chime in here.
>
> -Bill
>
> On 1/5/07, bakerocb@cox.net <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> 1/5/2007
>>
>> Hello Bill,
>>
>> 1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread."
>>
>> Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the
>> picture a bit.
>>
>> 2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind:
>> about the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by
>> Grand Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install"
>>
>> Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this
>> equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past.
>>
>> Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics
>> meet either TSO C145 or 146A.
>>
>> Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS /
>> internal GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what
>> additional legal value it would have when operating IFR. Like any
>> other reasonably capable GPS unit it could provide very beneficial
> situational awareness support.
>>
>> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering
>> knowledge.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>> To: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>>
>>
>>> OC, let me fess up here... I forgot that the GNS-430 includes the
>>> vhf nav comm side of things! I read the actual words in your post,
>>> but my brain fast-forwarded to the question more heavily on my mind:
>>> about the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by
>>> Grand Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install, the
>>> one that would let me omit the 430 from my purchase list and use
>>> just an SL30 in its place (and save mega-thousands). So my question
>>> was based in part on faulty assumptions of what was inside the
>>> 430-<head slap!> and partly on my impatience to get my own questions
>>> answered. Sorry to cloud any points in the thread.
>>>
>>> -Bill B.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Good Morning Kevin,
I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is a TSO
required for operations of a home built aircraft?
It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft.
The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight appears
to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator determines that the
equipment meets the standards required for IFR flight, the stuff should be
acceptable.
What do you feel is required?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
TSOs have been issued.
Kevin Horton
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: | Re: Keyed push to start switch source? |
Hi Bevan,
I use TurboCAD for everything.
Thank you.
Larry
do not archive
B Tomm wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> What software did you use to do your wiring diagrams? Beautiful!
>
> Bevan
> RV7A
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Bob,
You may be right? But most, if not all, of us lack the test equipment
to 'prove' that a given piece of equipment "meets the standards
required for IFR flight"?!
If the manufacture hasn't gone to the trouble and expense to show
their equipment meets 'standards' how can I? . . . Buying TSO'd
reduces that concern if you have it in the first place.
It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure the 'equipment requirements' for
IFR Flight indicate that certain equipment meet TSO standards?
My $0.02 worth!
Bob in SE Iowa
RV-8 builder - finishing slowly
On 1/6/07, BobsV35B@aol.com <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Good Morning Kevin,
>
> I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is a TSO
> required for operations of a home built aircraft?
>
> It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft.
>
> The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight appears
> to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator determines that the
> equipment meets the standards required for IFR flight, the stuff should be
> acceptable.
>
> What do you feel is required?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> khorton01@rogers.com writes:
> I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
> TSOs have been issued.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
> - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> page,
> Photoshare, and much much more:
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> the Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
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: | instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
1/6/2007
Hello Bill, You wrote: ".....skip........a contact visual approach in
VMC....skip...."
In order to keep our semantics correct a contact approach and a visual
approach are two different approaches used in different circumstances. See
the AIM for a description of each -- very easy to confuse the two.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________
Time: 05:20:06 AM PST US
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205
(WAAS)
Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
violate the spirit of the thing, somehow ;-)
-Bill B.
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: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Good Morning Bob,
Now I am getting way, way, out of my area.
However!
Meeting the TSO standards and being certified by the FAA as meeting those
standards are two different things.
Fortunately for us, the FAA rules and regulations are permissive, not
restrictive. If something is not specifically prohibited, we can do it. If what
we
do causes a problem that the FAA thinks shouldn't have occurred, they can go
after us via the careless and reckless provisions of the regulations.
For most Part 135 operations, the radio gear must be FAA certified as
meeting the TSO standards, for the rest of us, all we need to know is that the
manufacturer feels they meet the standards. As I see it, we are not required to
do the testing ourselves. I am not at all up to date on such things, but I do
recall flying many hundreds, if not thousands, of IFR hours using equipment
that was not certified by the FAA as meeting the applicable TSO's but that did
work just fine for our Part 91 functions.
Once again, my disclaimer, I am no longer active in that area and I could
very likely be way off base. Please let me know if that is true!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/6/2007 9:19:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes:
Bob,
You may be right? But most, if not all, of us lack the test equipment
to 'prove' that a given piece of equipment "meets the standards
required for IFR flight"?!
If the manufacture hasn't gone to the trouble and expense to show
their equipment meets 'standards' how can I? . . . Buying TSO'd
reduces that concern if you have it in the first place.
It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure the 'equipment requirements' for
IFR Flight indicate that certain equipment meet TSO standards?
My $0.02 worth!
Bob in SE Iowa
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: Keyed push to start switch source? |
I'm an electrical moron (the electrical scares me more than 100 fuel tanks)
but if you like the push-to-start button feature (I plan to do this - I
think it's kinda cool), there may be a simple key-operated circuit
disconnect you could install between the start button and the starting
circuit. You could conceal this keyed-switch wherever you wanted for
security (under the IP?), but maintain the push-to-start feature. I
personally don't know of a source for this keyed disconnect, but I'm sure
the many experienced people on this list may have an idea. I suppose it
also adds an additional failure mode, too. Just an idea.
Doug Fischer
Jenison, MI
RV-9A Wings
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Neilson" <grantneilson@telus.net>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Keyed push to start switch source?
> <grantneilson@telus.net>
>
> I'm going to be putting in a dual electronic ignition, dual battery setup
> and in order to maintain separate redundant ignition systems will have
> separate ignition toggle switches. I could use a simple push to start
> switch
> to the starter contactor, but would like the albeit minor security of a
> keyed switch. Does anyone know of a source for a keyed SPST momentary push
> to start or turn to start switch? It should be able to handle at least 5
> amps at 14 volts DC. Thanks in advance for any info.
>
> Do not archive
>
> Grant Neilson
> RV9A, finishing
>
>
>
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: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Bob,
I believe that the FAA's intent is that GPS equipment used for IFR
must be TSO approved to either TSO C129, C129A, C145A or C146A.
AC90-94 Guidelines for using Global Positioning System Equipment for
IFR En Route and Terminal Operations and for Nonprecision Instrument
Approaches in the U.S. National Airspace System says that GPS
equipment for use in the US National Airspace System should in
installed in accordance with AC20-138, which requires TSO'd GPS
receivers. I'll be the first to admit that an AC is not a
regulation, but if you want to propose an alternate means of
compliance you need to get the FAA to agree to it. I am not a
lawyer, so I won't attempt to define the clear regulatory trail that
would require TSO's GPS receivers.
I wish the regs were clearer in this area. You shouldn't need to
hire a lawyer to figure out what the regulatory requirements are.
The situation in Canada is somewhat clearer. There is a notice in
the Canada Air Pilot (the document that contains all the publicly
available instrument approach procedures) which clearly states that
TSO'd equipment is required to fly GPS approaches. This notice is
reprinted in Aeronautical Information Circular 27/05 in the Canadian
Aeronautical Information Manual.
http://tinyurl.com/y442ct
Kevin Horton
On 6 Jan 2007, at 09:52, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Kevin,
>
> I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is
> a TSO required for operations of a home built aircraft?
>
> It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft.
>
> The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight
> appears to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator
> determines that the equipment meets the standards required for IFR
> flight, the stuff should be acceptable.
>
> What do you feel is required?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> khorton01@rogers.com writes:
> I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
> TSOs have been issued.
>
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: | Is Marker Beacon needed with WAAS equipped GPS? |
While on the topic of GPS and IFR regulations. I am planning on equipping my Bearhawk
with a Garmin 480. For those not familiar, it contains a comm, a WAAS GPS
certified for precision GPS approaches, VOR/ ILS, and channeling for a remote
transponder box. My question is since with its GPS engine it can locate the
approach fixes that are normally located with a marker beacon receiver and even
will sound an audible alarm when you reach them, do I still need to install
a marker beacon receiver to be legal?
Thanks,
Rod Smith
__________________________________________________
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: | Is Marker Beacon needed with WAAS equipped GPS? |
Good Afternoon rodsmith52,
I received a completely blank message from you via the AeroElectric list,
but based on the subject matter, I would assume you wish to discuss the need for
a marker beacon receiver.
The answer to your question is: It All Depends!
A marker beacon receiver is only required if you wish to execute an approach
which specifies the need for one and when there is no acceptable and usable
substitute.
If you are planning to make a flight that only requires a GPS approved to
C146a standards, there is no requirement for a marker beacon receiver. If you
want to shoot an ILS, it is conceivable that a marker beacon receiver may be
required. However, most points that are designated by a marker re also
designated by some other method. Occasionally it will be an NDB. Sometimes RADAR
positioning will suffice. Other times there may be a radial off of a VOR that
can legally be used. In the event that the alternative for the marker is a DME
distance or a bearing to or from an NDB, an IFR approved GPS may be
substituted. If you will give me an example of an approach you wish to execute,
I
would be happy to give you my opinion of whether or not a marker beacon would
be
required and whether or not there are substitutions available.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Keyed push to start switch source? |
But not a flight critical failure. You may just be stuck on the ground
until you fix it or jump it out.
Larry
Doug Fischer wrote:
> <dfischer@iserv.net>
>
> I'm an electrical moron (the electrical scares me more than 100 fuel
> tanks) but if you like the push-to-start button feature (I plan to do
> this - I think it's kinda cool), there may be a simple key-operated
> circuit disconnect you could install between the start button and the
> starting circuit. You could conceal this keyed-switch wherever you
> wanted for security (under the IP?), but maintain the push-to-start
> feature. I personally don't know of a source for this keyed
> disconnect, but I'm sure the many experienced people on this list may
> have an idea. I suppose it also adds an additional failure mode,
> too. Just an idea.
>
> Doug Fischer
> Jenison, MI
> RV-9A Wings
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Neilson"
> <grantneilson@telus.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:02 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Keyed push to start switch source?
>
>
>> <grantneilson@telus.net>
>>
>> I'm going to be putting in a dual electronic ignition, dual battery
>> setup
>> and in order to maintain separate redundant ignition systems will have
>> separate ignition toggle switches. I could use a simple push to start
>> switch
>> to the starter contactor, but would like the albeit minor security of a
>> keyed switch. Does anyone know of a source for a keyed SPST momentary
>> push
>> to start or turn to start switch? It should be able to handle at least 5
>> amps at 14 volts DC. Thanks in advance for any info.
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>> Grant Neilson
>> RV9A, finishing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Hello,
I am wiring my aircraft per drawing Z-20 for a Jabiru engine
and am having a hard time wrapping my mind around
the wiring of the 2-10 switch. The book says this switch function
is ON-ON-ON. I want the bottom position to have Master OFF;
middle position Master ON and the top position to be Alternator ON.
I am using the OV disconnect relay system, a starter solenoid and
a battery solenoid.
Would someone mind try and explain this switch wiring to me
based on the Z-20 drawing.. Please!!
Thanks in advance..
Dick Fisher
sonex76@velocity.net
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated |
voltage regulator failure
At 08:56 PM 1/5/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>It was an Odyssey pc680 and it's van's 60 amp alternator with the internal
>voltage regulator. I don't know for sure the make but many say it's a
>nippondenso (ND). I didn't take it off yet.
>
>Yes, the voltage is monitored all the time by my EIS & EFIS and there's a
>pretty tight voltage range which would trigger an "alarm" if it went out
>of range. It never did prior to just oughtright dropping a couple of
>volts permanently. But it was my original battery which I abused
>throughout the build process and I'm not the least bit surprised. I got
>my 4 years money's worth as far as the battery goes....
Okay, so this battery's failure is not necessarily attributable
to any operating conditions in the airplane.
>
>No, I didn't actively track the battery's voltage becuase I ALWAYS left it
>on a trickle charger while hangared at the home airport and it never gave
>me any grief during long trips like to Oshkosh plus the alarm range was
>pretty tight on the EFIS (I guess you could say that's gross tracking to
>some extent). My bus voltage once the engine is running has always been
>about 14.2 volts plus or minus .1
That's about what I would expect.
>
>I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator so
>this seamed to have validated that statement. For sure though, from my
>observations, the battery appeared to go bad first then 2 hours later
>after a new battery was installed the regulator seems to have failed.
I'm skeptical of such claims. Consider how many batteries
you've replaced in cars without having to replace the alternator
too.
I've "killed" a few alternators in various test situations
but all failures involved either loss of cooling or mechanical
issues such as bearing or shear-shaft failures.
The way to "test" a weak-battery-kills-alternators hypothesis is
to separate the two components and then craft a test plan designed
to kill an alternator. In other words, if I had a brand new
alternator and a charter to damage it in some way on the test
stand, what kinds of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
device to bring about its untimely demise?
Once such a test plan is devised, then deduce how battery
behavior mimics any of the abuses you've crafted for the
purpose of killing an alternator.
I'd be interested in anyone's ideas as to how you might go
about it. Alternators are inherently self current limiting.
Given sufficient cooling air, you cannot "overload" one to
destruction. Alternator diodes are robust and will withstand
reverse voltage transients many times greater than system voltage.
It's the regulators that are most vulnerable to a load-dump
event and that's been demonstrated by several builders using
Van's (and perhaps other) alternators combined with b-lead
contactor controls.
I'm not suggesting that battery condition might not be a bit-player
in a scenario that's hard on alternators. For example:
I can see how the "weak battery" thing might have morphed into
a cause/effect for alternator failure where someone knows that
having a battery be disconnected from the alternator at the same
time all loads are removed causes a potentially hazardous
over-shoot. One might deduce that a "weak" battery has
lost its ability to mitigate a load-dump events thereby
placing the alternator at-risk.
If this hypothesis were in play for your situation, the alternator
seems most likely to have failed while the "weak" battery was
in place. Certainly having a "strong" new battery in place totally
eliminates the risk for hazardous transients during ordinary
system load reductions.
This could be hypothetically thrashed for days but without very
specific test data, we'll never know how your tandem failures
may or may not have been related.
> My current battery voltage is really good, even after the voltage
> regulator failure stress on the battery.
The momentary abuses heaped on your battery were of limited duration
and will have the net effect of reducing your battery's service
life by some small fraction. By the way, once your alternator is
turned ON after engine start, are you able to turn it OFF from
the pilot's controls while the engine is running?
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Broken and Garbled" (Additional data) |
I think it's one of those once-in-a-blue-moon or perhaps in-our-fondest-wishes
kinds of advertising. We see it a lot when manufacturers talk about the wattage
of their audio systems. The $low$ hand-helds have transmitters that run in the
100 mW range. Some $high$ transceivers for the $licensed$ service may be
allowed
to run more . . . I haven't dug out the rules on this.
But consider the 100 mW case by punching numbers into a path loss calculator
at:
http://tinyurl.com/y9tte2
Use 0.1 watts, 14 km (about 10 mi) and 450 Mhz.
Use 0, 0 and -3 for transmit and receive antenna values
Use 0 for "other losses". Hit Calculate.
We see that this gives us a 4 microvolt signal at the
receiver end. A really good receiver can be barely
useful at about 1/10th this value or 0.4 microvolts.
This means that assuming the receivers in these $20 handhelds
are capable of 0.4 microvolt performance, we can tolerate
20 db of "other" losses over a 10 mi course and still communicate.
It would be interesting to evaluate these radios in the lab
but the ones I have don't have coax connectors where the antennas
go such that one might easily evaluate real transmitter power output
and real receiver performance. Given the less-than-ideal
antennas and poor probability that the power and sensitivity
numbers are equal to the example cited, I doubt that the
radios I've been using can be expected to produce useful
performance at the "advertised" ranges.
One can purchase much more expensive radios that operate
in this service. It's reasonable to expect some
improvements in performance, but it's still difficult to minimize
"other" losses in the communications path.
Most of the radios I've purchased were the $lowest$ I could
find because my path-lengths of interest ran from a few feet
to perhaps 50 yards. I often use them to communicate with
a technician in the cockpit while I'm working in the "hell-hole"
of an airplane. The poorest performing was good for perhaps
100 yards between vehicles on the highway and the last set
I bought are much better. They are usable out to 1 mile if
the two cars can see each other.
Idealized conditions are generally used when you're being
seduced into buying the critters. Real-world performance
and non-idealized path loss conditions are an all together
different matter.
Bob . . .
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The D-25 essential buss diode |
At 07:51 PM 1/5/2007 -0500, you wrote:
><bbradburry@allvantage.com>
>
>Thanks, Bob...That answers my confusion about the E-buss, but I am
>still stuck on the Z-19 diodes that bring both batteries power into the
>fuel pump and ECU...There are two ins and one out and I don't understand
>how to tell which is which....??
>
>Thanks,
>Bill B
Okay. The gozintas for the diode pairs in Z-19 are the two AC
terminals adjacent to the (+) gozouta terminal. This means
you use the 90-degree twisted terminal for out. Ignore the (-)
terminal opposite the (+) terminal and use the adjacent
AC terminals for interchangeable inputs.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
At 10:43 PM 1/6/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am wiring my aircraft per drawing Z-20 for a Jabiru engine
>and am having a hard time wrapping my mind around
>the wiring of the 2-10 switch. The book says this switch function
>is ON-ON-ON. I want the bottom position to have Master OFF;
>middle position Master ON and the top position to be Alternator ON.
>I am using the OV disconnect relay system, a starter solenoid and
>a battery solenoid.
>Would someone mind try and explain this switch wiring to me
>based on the Z-20 drawing.. Please!!
This is explained in detail in Chapter 11 of the 'Connection.
There is also some information on the 2-10 switch operation
and terminal numbering conventions in Appendix Z figure
at the bottom of Page Z-9 and Note 15 on page Z-10.
If you study the wiring of the DC Power Master switch
in Z-20 (or any other z-figures) you'll see that when
the switch is in full down position (as drawn) there is
no pathway for either the battery or alternator . . . I.e.
the system is OFF. Now, the switch is designated as
an ON-ON-ON functionality because there are some connections
made through the switch in any of its three positions.
As wired, we do not connect to terminals 3 and 6 which
provide conduction pathway in the lower position of the handle.
With nothing connected to 3 and 6, then the lowest position
of the handle produces a system OFF condition.
In the mid position, terminals 1 and 2 are connected
which closes the battery circuit . . . but terminals 5 and
6 are still connected on the other side of the switch leaving
the alternator OFF. Moving the switch one more step leaves
terminals 1 and 2 connected (battery still on) and connects
terminals 4 and 5 are now connected which adds alternator
operation.
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 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: | Winterville, NC Seminar date set |
We've just posted a sign-up sheet for a weekend seminar
to be presented in Chapter 1423's facility in Winterville,
North Carolina on March 24/25 of 2007. Details are available at:
http://aeroelectric.com/seminars/Winterville.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 >
---------------------------------------------------------
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! --
|