Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:16 AM - Re: starter warning light? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 05:18 AM - Re: Tooling up (LarryRobertHelming)
3. 07:52 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 28 Msgs - 01/18/07 (William Morgan)
4. 08:18 AM - Re: Tooling up (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:24 AM - Re: Starting points redux (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: Starting points redux (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:58 AM - more direct method for designing electrical system (Larry E. James)
8. 09:41 AM - Re: more direct method for designing electrical system (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
9. 09:44 AM - Re: Re: Starting points redux (Bret Smith)
10. 10:02 AM - Re: more direct method for designing electrical system (Michael Ice)
11. 10:39 AM - Re: more direct method for designing electrical system (Kevin Horton)
12. 10:40 AM - Re: more direct method for designing electrical system (Steve Thomas)
13. 10:56 AM - inrush limiters for landing lights (Bill Boyd)
14. 10:56 AM - Re: more direct method for designing electrical system (LarryRobertHelming)
15. 12:01 PM - Strobe Light Selection (mwcreek@frontiernet.net)
16. 01:10 PM - Re: Strobe Light Selection (LarryMcFarland)
17. 01:26 PM - Re: inrush limiters for landing lights (Vern Little)
18. 01:53 PM - Re: Strobe Light Selection (Werner Schneider)
19. 05:35 PM - Nav radios in certified aircraft (Dave N6030X)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: starter warning light? |
At 02:09 PM 1/18/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>OK, got it: starter run-on and sticking are different issues. But assuming
>I install the warning light and subsequently have a starter run-on
>occurrence, will the warning light be on while the run-on is occurring?
Yes. While the PM motor is spinning down the voltage generated
by the rotating armature will keep the light lit. As the armature
comes to a stop the light will go out.
> An
>individual suggested to me off-list that if the starter gear is stuck in
>the engaged position and the engine is running (push-to-start button
>released and starter contactor open), the starter motor could act as a
>generator and produce some current.
A much fertilize myth. Starters have over-run clutches. The engine
CANNOT be allowed to 'push' the starter under any circumstances.
Consider that a highly geared starter armature is spinning at thousands
of RPM while cranking the engine at perhaps 300 rpm. When the engine
starts, it jumps up to 1000-1500 rpm. This 3 to 5 times increase in
speed cannot be allowed to impress on the starter's gears and armature.
The forces applied to gear teeth place them at risk. Spinning the
armature places winding and commutator at risk for damage due to
centrifugal forces.
> If this is the case, it would seem
>that a warning light that stayed on a little longer than the short period
>my push to start button was in use could potentially be warning me of the
>dreaded run-on condition instead of just the stuck contactor or stuck
>starter button. Added value or just wishful thinking?
The condition we've called "run-on" is poorly named. It's really
"delayed disengagement" do to currents circulating in the pinion
gear engagement solenoid that are being generated in a slowing
armature spinning in a permanent magnetic field. I've never personally
observed this event but it's my understanding that it lasts perhaps
3-5 seconds.
The "run-on" condition is not particularly stressful on the
starter . . . because of the over-run clutch cited. Assuming
(1) you wire your starter engaged light so as to sense voltage
at the starter motor power terminal and (2) it's a PM starter and
(3) you HAVE installed the relay intended to prevent delayed
disengagement then, you would STILL observe a fading STARTER
ENGAGED indication from the annunciator as the starter motor spins
down. This happens in spite of the fact that the relay has broken
the circuit responsible for delayed disengagement.
The light has value in that it shows when voltage is present
at the starter motor terminals at times when it is not expected
or desirable. It will also demonstrate the voltage generating
quality of a PM motor as it spins down after being disconnected
from the battery.
Bob . . .
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I am all for saving money too. Lots of the high priced tools are for
jobbers who use them day in and out. We plane builders need them for a
couple of months at most hopefully.
For wire stripper I like the manual type. Takes a bit of practice to get
good but they work. Most inexpensive automatic strippers do not work well
with aviation grade wire. I bought my manual one at Radio Shack.
For crimper, you should get a good one. I have some HF tools but not their
crimper. Too much riding on it in my thinking. You do not want to be
debugging things a few years down the road and a bad intermittent connection
due to crimper could be the problem. $40 is not a bad price for that peace
of mind. I think I bought mine from Wicks which was the ratcheting type. I
also have a manual squeeze crimper that has three crimp sizes. They both
work well. You can get the job done nicely with the manual type. However,
I like the ratcheting type because it will hold the connector while you
insert the wire and ensures the squeeze is just right.
For coax, you need the correct type for the wire size you use. Be careful
to get the correct size and you will be happy. I think I bought mine from B
& C. Keep the instructions and use them on how to properly cut and prepare
the coax when using the particular tool for good results.
For crimping D-sub connectors, I got the B&C which is nice and works
perfectly. Not cheap. D-sub connectors are delicate and a precision tool
is well worth the cost..
You will be happy with B & C or Stein products. If not, you will be dealt
with in a manner that makes you happy. That has been my experience with
dealing with both of them.
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tooling up
> gather some electrical tools as I get deeper in my RV-9A project, I wanted
> to sample some opinions on inexpensive electrical tools (crimpers, both
> PIDG and D-sub pin types, strippers for wire and coax, etc). After
> perusing the Connection and website articles, archives, etc., I am noting
> there is a large price difference for the same clones of crimpers,
> strippers, etc, that may not be very justifiable. For example, HF has a
> ratcheting crimper for $10, and the exact looking one sells at B and C for
> $40. Same with Stripmaster clones and so on. I am a big believer in
> spending a premium dollar for a tool if it really is above and beyond a
> competitor's or serves a unique niche, but is there a reason I can't
> utilize some of these inexpensive tools successfully (perhaps with a
> little more practice than needed with the high dollar comparable)? Any
> tools folks recommend really staying away from?
> Thanks,
> Carl
>
>
>
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 28 Msgs - 01/18/07 |
I own 5 different Ideal Stripmasters for different types / sizes of wires.
One of them is about 40 years old (bought it at Heathkit store).
I have compared the Ideal Stripmmaster to just about every other wire
stripper out there
and there is no comparison. I use a single edge razor blade for
large wire, coax cable and shielded multi-conductor.
I bought the B&C BCT-1 B-crimp open barrel type crimper and am happy
with that. I plan on buying a B&C BCT-2 also.
I bought the B&C RCT-2 coaxial crimper and am happy with that.
I have a PIDG type crimper with inter-changable jaws from Hi-Line
(don't remember the number, but it has an angled head) that is
excellent but a little pricey. It has a high leverage linkage so
requires very little effort to crimp, I also have the B&C RCT-1 PIDG
crimp tool but seldom use it anymore.
I have an eight way indent crimper that a friend in the wire
manufacturing business gave me that looks like the B&C RCT-3 (he said
I did not what to know what it cost) and have used the B&C RCT-3.
Go with the RCT-3.
Buy a Weller soldering iron. My 25 watt iron is also about 40 years
old. Get some extra tips in various sizes.
Hemostats, flush-cut wire cutters (to trim open barrel connectors per
Bob's instructions) and a small needle-nose plier are also handy.
Don't forget a shrink tube heat gun. Mine is from Harbor
Freight. Got it for $10.
Scott @ William Morgan Warbirds
At 01:55 AM 1/19/2007, you wrote:
>Time: 08:55:28 PM PST US
>From: Carl Peters <say.ahh1@verizon.net>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tooling up
>
>
>In starting to gather some electrical tools as I get deeper in my RV-9A
>project, I wanted to sample some opinions on inexpensive electrical
>tools (crimpers, both PIDG and D-sub pin types, strippers for wire and
>coax, etc). After perusing the Connection and website articles,
>archives, etc., I am noting there is a large price difference for the
>same clones of crimpers, strippers, etc, that may not be very
>justifiable. For example, HF has a ratcheting crimper for $10, and the
>exact looking one sells at B and C for $40. Same with Stripmaster clones
>and so on. I am a big believer in spending a premium dollar for a tool
>if it really is above and beyond a competitor's or serves a unique
>niche, but is there a reason I can't utilize some of these inexpensive
>tools successfully (perhaps with a little more practice than needed with
>the high dollar comparable)? Any tools folks recommend really staying
>away from?
>Thanks,
>Carl
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 |
|
At 07:17 AM 1/19/2007 -0600, you wrote:
><lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
>I am all for saving money too. Lots of the high priced tools are for
>jobbers who use them day in and out. We plane builders need them for a
>couple of months at most hopefully.
>
>For wire stripper I like the manual type. Takes a bit of practice to get
>good but they work. Most inexpensive automatic strippers do not work well
>with aviation grade wire. I bought my manual one at Radio Shack.
The best strippers for teflon/tefzel insulations are expensive.
OK Stripmasters with the proper dies installed are about $170
a copy.
With a little practice, one can produce satisfactory strips
with ordinary wire cutters but it takes some technique and
practice. This is one of the techniques I demonstrate in
my seminars and everyone gets a chance to strip some Tefzel
wires before installing a variety of terminals/pins.
I own quite a few stripping tools but they tend to be either
stone-simple and very process sensitive or the $high$ Stripmasters.
It's a matter of what you're willing to learn.
>For crimper, you should get a good one. I have some HF tools but not
>their crimper. Too much riding on it in my thinking. You do not want to
>be debugging things a few years down the road and a bad intermittent
>connection due to crimper could be the problem. $40 is not a bad price
>for that peace of mind. I think I bought mine from Wicks which was the
>ratcheting type. I also have a manual squeeze crimper that has three
>crimp sizes. They both work well. You can get the job done nicely with
>the manual type. However, I like the ratcheting type because it will hold
>the connector while you insert the wire and ensures the squeeze is just right.
The best PIDG tool is the AMP T-head hand tool illustrated
in . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
The $40 tool is illustrated there too. Both produce satisfactory
terminal installations. The last time I put my hands on the
$10 ratchet-handled tool from Harbor Freight, it appeared to
be a clone of the $40 tool and a good value.
See also
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
>For coax, you need the correct type for the wire size you use. Be careful
>to get the correct size and you will be happy. I think I bought mine from
>B & C. Keep the instructions and use them on how to properly cut and
>prepare the coax when using the particular tool for good results.
Get an adjustable tool like
http://tinyurl.com/ypxzv5
These can be set up for a variety of coaxes and
comes with the allen wrench needed for adjusting
the blades. This is the tool I demonstrate at
the seminars and give away as door prizes.
See also:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Coax_Stripper/coaxstrip.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
I've had some problems with crimp tools of all
sources except AMP and other $high$ brands.
Many tools in the 40-100 dollar range have
a slightly undersized, ".213 hex die that does
an adequate but ugly crimp on the sleeve
intended to secure the shield. The undersized
die causes the sleeve to extrude into the gap
between the two dies on the tool. Looks crappy.
Here's some data on coax connectors.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/clampcm.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/crimpbf.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/crimpcf.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/s605cm.jpg
>For crimping D-sub connectors, I got the B&C which is nice and works
>perfectly. Not cheap. D-sub connectors are delicate and a precision tool
>is well worth the cost..
The best D-sub tools are priced in the hundreds of
dollars but you can often get good deals on e-bay like
this . . .
http://tinyurl.com/27588z
Be aware that you not only need the handle shown but
a pin-positioner unique to the style of pin being
installed. Again, I own a variety of tools including
the $high$ and the $40 tool from B&C. All produce
satisfactory installations and unless you're "in the
business" like I am, the $40 tool will do what you
need done.
>You will be happy with B & C or Stein products. If not, you will be dealt
>with in a manner that makes you happy. That has been my experience with
>dealing with both of them.
And either one will work with you to make sure that
the tools and connectors/terminals you've purchased
are compatible with the wire/cable you're trying
to install. Not ALL tools will properly install ALL
terminations on ALL wires. AMP didn't get to be the
big kid in the sandbox by ignoring the science of
good crimped installations. There are some adequate
up-n-commers out there but a modicum of caution
is useful. Rely on those suppliers dedicated to
the business of helping YOU with YOUR tasks.
See also:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/matenlok/matenlok.html
Bob . . .
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: Starting points redux |
Here's a reprint on a reply I crafted for a builder some years
ago dealing with some of the issues faced by a neophyte builder
in coming to grips with a new task . . . configure and fabricate
an aircraft electrical system.
------------------****************-------------------
At 05:44 PM 10/27/2002 -0500, you wrote
>Thanks for your reply and I do appreciate the time you have
>spent.
No problem. It's what I do . . .
>*IF* I knew anything about this subject I wouldn't have asked
>for help with *specifics*. I don't have the time to experiment
>and see who is right (or wrong). You are generally regarded as
>a guru in your discipline and I had hoped there would be a
>"reasonable, definitive and irrefutable answer", Since I have
>not been shown anything (by anyone), I guess I need to choose
>what seems to be the safest course of direction.
>
>I am not trying to argue or diminish your knowledge on the
>subject in any form or fashion. I simply need a document that
>will be an accurate guide and keep me out of trouble. The 43-13
>is generally regarded as the "accepted" methodology, not
>withstanding an heretofore unseen document that would supersede
>the 43-13 handbook.
>
>You mention that you could sit down and write some. Let me
>tell you that would be welcomed with open arms throughout
>the experimental community. I have read a lot of what you
>have wrote and it makes a lot of sense. A document about
>wiring in an vibrating environment would be a great asset
>to our community. "To Solder or Not to Solder". <g>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. Here are the "rules" by which Bob Nuckolls would
wire his own airplane:
----------------------------------------------------------------
RULE 1: First choice for joining/terminating any wires up
through 22 through 12AWG are PIDG style terminals as described in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
using tools like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-1
or better.
---------------------------
RULE 2: Where there is a choice, I would select fast-ons over
threaded fasteners in the 22 to 12 AWG range using
terminals like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/wiring/wiring.html#faston
with features as explained in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/faston3.pdf
---------------------------
RULE 3: When I have to live with a treaded fastener then
these terminals are in order . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/wiring/wiring.html#s816p
----------------------------
RULE 4: For wires larger than 12AWG, then I would solder and heatshrink
joints as described in . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf
Using materials like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/wiring/s812.jpg
which are supplied with double-wall heatshrink for finishing.
-------------------------------
RULE 5A: Permanent splicing of single conductors to be accomplished
with butt splices like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/wiring/s816.jpg
-------------------------------
RULE 5B: but if it was deemed desirable to break the
splice open for future convenience, a knife splice and heat
shrink would be used thusly . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/wiring/ksplc2.jpg
-------------------------------
RULE 6: When the accessory items are supplied with
nylon connectors like AMP Mate-n-Lock or Molex, pins
are installed with a tool like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#bct-1
used thusly . . .
http://216.55.140.222/articles/matenlok/matenlok.html
These connectors would only be used as an accommodation
for the use of an accessory that comes with them already
installed. They are not my connector style of choice for any
other applications.
------------------------------------
RULE 7A: When working with accessories supplied with
D-sub connectors, the first choice of mating connectors
is the removable pin variety that will accept machined
pins like . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/connect/connect.html#S604
installed with a tool like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-3
and removed with a tool like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#dse-1
---------------------------------------
RULE 7B: if for any reason the crimped-pin mating d-sub is
not available, then soldering is my second choice using
techniques described in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/dsubs/d_solder.html
and tools like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#s101_1
or better
-----------------------------------------
RULE 7C: If options 7A and 7B are not practical, then the
lowest order choice for working with d-subs is open barrel
crimped pins installed with a tools and techniques like
those described in RULE 6.
-----------------------------------------
RULE 8: Installation of connectors on coaxial cables to
antennas are installed per
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
using tool . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-2
and wire . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html#rg-400
and connectors . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html
-------------------------------------------
RULE 9: A single point ground system shall be established behind
the instrument panel with sufficient attach points for all
accessories in the cockpit area. In deference to RULE 2,
a forest-of-fast-on-tabs ground block similar to . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/wiring/wiring.html#gndblk
The threaded stud on the ground block assembly would penetrate
the firewall and be used to terminate battery (-) leads on
either side of firewall and the crankcase ground strap on
the engine side of the firewall.
In the case of canard pushers with the battery up front,
the ground bus would be mounted forward of the instrument
panel. If the airplane's firewall is metalic, then a
brass bolt and appropriate washers and nuts would be used
to provide an engine compartment ground stud and connection
of the ground lead to the firewall. A ground strap like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/wiring/wiring.html#bbs
. . . will be used to connect the crankcase to the firewall
ground stud.
Any ground straps provided around the rubber biscuits of
an engine mount will be removed. Engine mounts are for holding
engines on airplanes and not use for any part of the electrical
system.
-------------------------------------------
RULE 10: Tefzel wire used throughout with the exception of
cranking circuit fat wires where 4AWG or 2AWG welding cable
would be used. An alternative FAT wire could be one of the
new copper-clad aluminum wires. These new materials are as
solderable and crimpable as pure copper conductors.
Caution
To get the same electrical performance, you need to use about
2AWG steps larger wire than for copper but the installed wire
will still be lighter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Here endeth the reading of the rules. In parallel universes
there are differing rules which may well prove to be as useful
or perhaps even better than those cited in Bob's universe.
Given what Bob has learned up to and including Sunday,
October 27, 2003 the rules cited above are his personal
choices for practical, solid techniques using moderately
priced materials, and tools. Adherence to these rules is likely
to produce an electrical system where (1) component wear-out
and failure are the sole causes for maintenance and
(2) the wiring can be expected to perform as intended over
the lifetime of the airplane.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Here is how I perceive the question, "When can you use solder on
>a #2 wire?" Answer, "Well, that depends!". I can't deal with that
>kind of an answer. Unfortunately that is all I have been getting
>from our canard community rank and file.
Yes, it does depend . . . on only one thing. Whether or
not YOU want to solder wires. If any of the rank and file
disagree with this, please invite them to bring the facts
as they perceive them over to the AeroElectric-List. If
I'm unaware of some critical information on the matter,
I and several hundred others are intently interested
in knowing what it is.
This isn't a battle of wills or a turf war. We need to
be constantly evolving the art and science of building
airplanes based on physics. If I am in error, nobody is
more interested in knowing about it than I am.
> Let's take any war story you find "believable" and do a
> > critical analysis of facts cited to see how they add value
> > to our deliberations.
>
>Bob, you are getting picky here, I must have hit a nerve, I
>didn't mean to. Take my word for it however, there have been
>recent posts of this and breaking because they were soldered.
>I just am not going to find them at this time as most were
>bad work anyway. One fellow emailed me and stated a bad crimp
>is just as bad a bad solder. Hummmmm?
You brought up war stories as having an influence on your
deliberations. I've written many times and with extreme
disfavor on consideration of what I call "Dark and stormy
night" stories as useful data for the design and fabrication
of an electrical system. I'll suggest that most
of those stories came about due to a lack of
understanding on the part of pilots, manufacturers and
bureaucrats as to what it takes to produce a reliable
flight system.
See chapter 17 of the AeroElectric Connection.
Our easy-to-achieve goals for having airplanes that stand
above the spam-cans is (1) design for failure tolerance
and (2) take on the responsibility to learn how to use
ANY chosen assembly technique effectively. There will ALWAYS
be failures of one kind or another in ANY system. Yeah,
you might even burn a soldered terminal off the end of
a wire cause you didn't put it on right . . . but you might
burn a crimped terminal off too for EXACTLY THE SAME
REASON.
>You mentioned $120.00 for a tool. To me that is not an
>outrageous price. I'll look into them shortly. I suspect I
>will need several. Perhaps you could recommend one.
Not $120 per tool but the WHOLE SET of tools
. . . see citations in list of rules above.
>When I amuse my wife she becomes exuberant and happy. I hope
>I have effected you in the same manner. <g> If you consider that
>no other document has been offered, except the 43-13, to answer
>my specific question, I guess it accurately fits the description.
>All I have seen are several multi page documents, although well
>written, do not answer my original question regarding solder
>in the vibrating arena.
I've made the statement numerous times and will repeat it
here. There is no significant difference in a properly
soldered versus properly crimped joint on a wire. Crimping
takes specialized tools and less skill; soldering uses
very in-expensive tools and takes some practice. I cannot
cite any reason for saying that one technique is better
than the other with respect to service life in your airplane.
> One of these days, I plan to do a "Layman's Guide to
> the use of AC43-13 Electrical Section" . . . it's
> going to be a big chore and I'm not looking forward to
> it.
>It would appear that it is a badly needed document. Having
>been inundated with just about every "war story" and Uncle
>Herbs snake oil remedy for proper wiring, I would personally
>be relieved to have in my possession such a document. All
>kidding aside, you should dedicate it to me. I represent the
>many who don't know but will admit it. <g>
I think you're making it more complicated than it
needs to be. This is the objection I have for the
way the EXP-Bus was sold at OSH last time I was there.
A guy behind the counter hands you this whippy
assembly that looks really complicated . . .
http://www.controlvision.com/pages/avionics_expbus.htm
. . .and it only costs $300! You hold the thing in your
hand an think, "Damn! I'd NEVER be able to figure out
something like this," while the guy behind the counter
tells you about all the whippy things it will do and
how much "time" it will save.
The question you don't know to ask and he doesn't offer
is "Does this product offer the simplest, lowest parts
count, equal or better performance result at the same
or lower cost of ownership." My answer to that
question is, "No, it does not."
When you pick up an English language dictionary, one
finds perhaps 100,000+ words contained therein of which
most literate adults use less than two percent
of the total. Yet I think we communicate very well.
AC43-13 is a similar document. It's a real piece of
work and LOOKS important because its got this
whippy government agency seal on the cover.
Like the EXP-Bus and the dictionary, there are a handful
of core facts and features around which 95% of your
system will be designed and built and I think I've
touched on most of them above.
> > It's precisely this sort of quest for comfort in
> > traditional techniques and/or bureaucratic decision
> > making that has brought certified aviation to the point
> > it is today . . .
> >
> > |---------------------------------------------|
> > | Independence, Kansas . . . your #1 source |
> > | factory fresh, 50-year old airplanes. |
> > |---------------------------------------------|
>
>
>You have a valid point. I only wish my Long will be around
>as long and respected as the veritable DC-3.
No-biggie. Solar UV is going to rot the poor bugger
to dust before any of your wiring falls apart.
>Again, thanks for your time. I do feel honored that someone
>of your stature has taken the time to try and straighten me
>out and be a help.
Another no-biggie. You've just fallen victim to a
veritable blizzard of non-information that provides
job-security for certain classes of worker citizens
in other aviation venues.
You're really better prepared than you think you are
but pouring over a document that's 95% floobydust will
only make the answers harder to find and understand.
Put down your copy of AC43-13 and let's get started
on your airplane. If questions come up along the way,
you'll get better answers TAILORED to your situation
off the list-servers than you'll get out of that
document.
By the way, my e-mail address at nuckolls@aeroelectric.com
is going away in a few days. 95% of what arrives there is
either spam or virus attacks. Use bob.nuckolls@cox.net
instead. There's an e-mail generator on the website at
http://aeroelectric.com/bob.nuckolls/ that will forward
to the Cox account. I'm trying to avoid publishing my
direct e-mail address on publicly accessed web pages
to keep from getting picked up by so many spam-bots.
Better yet, join the AeroElectric-List . . .
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: | Re: re: Starting points redux |
At 10:23 AM 1/19/2007 -0600, you wrote:
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>Here's a reprint on a reply I crafted for a builder some years
>ago dealing with some of the issues faced by a neophyte builder
>in coming to grips with a new task . . . configure and fabricate
>an aircraft electrical system.
>
>------------------****************-------------------
>
>At 05:44 PM 10/27/2002 -0500, you wrote
>
>>Thanks for your reply and I do appreciate the time you have
>>spent.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> My apologies folks. The links in this posting are
> before the re-organization of the website that occurred
> right after the message.
>
> Dump this one and I'll see if I can sit down later today
> and fix the links for a re-posting of the piece.
>
> Bob . . .
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: | more direct method for designing electrical system |
Hello All,
I've been lurking on this list for some time and come to the conclusion that
I have little interest in diving into the electrical design and issues for
my Rocket as deeply as is addressed here. My hat is off to all of you and I
am very glad this forum exists as I truly believe you are accomplishing good
things in advancing the technology for aircraft. But this subject makes my
head hurt.
I have lurked enough to form some opinions on what I would like incorporated
into my aircraft. I am now looking for a more simple way of drawing this
out so that I can "connect wire from point A to point B". Anyone have any
ideas ??
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Harmon Rocket
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: | more direct method for designing electrical system |
Assuming your Rocket is a simple VFR airplane i would choose the
simplest of Bob's Aerolectric schematics and copy that. You really can't
go wrong.
If you have anything fancy like twin electronic ignitons or IFR then
you need to be careful and make sure you have redundancy built into the
design.
But if you have two mags, mechanical fuel pump, radio,transponder. Then
simply make sure you have a seperate circuit for each device that is
fused appropriately.
I would use the alternate feed method so that if you have to shut down
the the master switch (in flight fire) you can at least call for help on
the radio.
Frank
7a IFR
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
E. James
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:57 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: more direct method for designing electrical
system
Hello All,
I've been lurking on this list for some time and come to the conclusion
that I have little interest in diving into the electrical design and
issues for my Rocket as deeply as is addressed here. My hat is off to
all of you and I am very glad this forum exists as I truly believe you
are accomplishing good things in advancing the technology for aircraft.
But this subject makes my head hurt.
I have lurked enough to form some opinions on what I would like
incorporated into my aircraft. I am now looking for a more simple way
of drawing this out so that I can "connect wire from point A to point
B". Anyone have any ideas ??
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Harmon Rocket
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: re: Starting points redux |
Thank you for this...Looking forward to the redux
Bret Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: re: Starting points redux
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 10:23 AM 1/19/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>
>>Here's a reprint on a reply I crafted for a builder some years
>>ago dealing with some of the issues faced by a neophyte builder
>>in coming to grips with a new task . . . configure and fabricate
>>an aircraft electrical system.
>>
>>------------------****************-------------------
>>
>>At 05:44 PM 10/27/2002 -0500, you wrote
>>
>>>Thanks for your reply and I do appreciate the time you have
>>>spent.
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> My apologies folks. The links in this posting are
>> before the re-organization of the website that occurred
>> right after the message.
>>
>> Dump this one and I'll see if I can sit down later today
>> and fix the links for a re-posting of the piece.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
>
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: more direct method for designing electrical system |
Larry,
less than a month ago I felt like you do right now, hopelessly lost.
Buy the aeroelectric connection. Read this forum. For a simple electric system,
follow the Z-11. It really isn't hard. Just figure out where your battery is
on the drawing and in your airplane and start running one wire at a time. Make
a copy of the Z-11 (drawing out of the aeroelectric book) and every time you
run a wire color it in with a high lighter. When all the lines are done you have
a working electrical system.
Also, take a look at your copy of the drawing and figure out what switches you
need and call up or web order from B&C or Stein.
Or: you could just order Van's pre-made wire harness, but i bet before you get
it installed you will take it up and use the wires to do the Z-11. I know because
that is what I did.
Don't sweat it, you can do it. Or just open up your wallet and hire someone to
do it.
Mike Ice
RV-9, wiring, wiring, wiring
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: more direct method for designing electrical system
> Hello All,
> I've been lurking on this list for some time and come to the
> conclusion that
> I have little interest in diving into the electrical design and
> issues for
> my Rocket as deeply as is addressed here. My hat is off to all of
> you and I
> am very glad this forum exists as I truly believe you are
> accomplishing good
> things in advancing the technology for aircraft. But this subject
> makes my
> head hurt.
> I have lurked enough to form some opinions on what I would like
> incorporatedinto my aircraft. I am now looking for a more simple
> way of drawing this
> out so that I can "connect wire from point A to point B". Anyone
> have any
> ideas ??
>
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA
> Harmon Rocket
>
>
>
>
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: more direct method for designing electrical system |
On 19 Jan 2007, at 11:57, Larry E. James wrote:
> Hello All,
> I've been lurking on this list for some time and come to the
> conclusion that I have little interest in diving into the
> electrical design and issues for my Rocket as deeply as is
> addressed here. My hat is off to all of you and I am very glad
> this forum exists as I truly believe you are accomplishing good
> things in advancing the technology for aircraft. But this subject
> makes my head hurt.
> I have lurked enough to form some opinions on what I would like
> incorporated into my aircraft. I am now looking for a more simple
> way of drawing this out so that I can "connect wire from point A to
> point B". Anyone have any ideas ??
>
I started my original electrical system schematics with pencil, paper
and an eraser. A very big eraser. Select Bob's Z Drawing that
matches your needs and draw it out, putting the wire size and wire ID
on each wire. That takes care of the big picture, which gets power
to each bus. Then, make a separate drawing for each system, starting
at the bus, going to the fuse (or CB), then to the switch and then to
the item(s) that need power in that system.
While it is certainly possible to draw the schematics with pencil and
paper, I found that I made too many mistakes, and you can only erase
one area on the page so many times then you need to start over. So,
I switched to a simple drawing program on my computer. I used
AppleWorks on my Mac, but there are many other programs that will
work on all modern operating systems.
It isn't difficult, but it is time consuming.
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
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: more direct method for designing electrical system |
Two things, Larry:
1. Get Bob Nuckolls' book, "The Aeroelectric Connection" and read
it. Then, take a look at the various wiring diagrams included in the
appendices and pick the one that best suits your aircraft.
2. Attend one of Bob's regional weekend seminars.
This will solve most of your simple "how to" questions. The
remainder can be asked here and you will get expert answers.
Best Regards,
Steve
____________________________________________________________________
On Jan 19, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Larry E. James wrote:
> Hello All,
> I've been lurking on this list for some time and come to the
> conclusion that I have little interest in diving into the
> electrical design and issues for my Rocket as deeply as is
> addressed here. My hat is off to all of you and I am very glad
> this forum exists as I truly believe you are accomplishing good
> things in advancing the technology for aircraft. But this subject
> makes my head hurt.
> I have lurked enough to form some opinions on what I would like
> incorporated into my aircraft. I am now looking for a more simple
> way of drawing this out so that I can "connect wire from point A to
> point B". Anyone have any ideas ??
>
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA
> Harmon Rocket
>
>
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: | inrush limiters for landing lights |
Bob-
what's you latset thinking about using inline inrush current limiters
for those of us with halogen 100w landing lights? I'll be using mine
in wig-wag mode most of the time, and read your archived comments
about filament cooling in half-second time frames. Will limiters help
the life of my toggle switch enough to matter? I'm not using a relay
for that load when in the constant-on mode.
Thanks,
-Bill B.
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: more direct method for designing electrical system |
BlankLarry, you can learn how to use one of the flowcharting/design
tools on a computer and make your own design.
I thought about that and realized every minute spent learning something
like that would time away from flying. So, I bought Bob's book, made
copies of the schematics supporting features I wanted and used some tape
and scissors and made my own. I wired the plane and it all works. I am
a retired banker and not an EE or mechanic. You can do it using Bob's
schematics..
Indiana Larry with 175 hours RV7
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry E. James
To: AeroElectric-List@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: more direct method for designing
electrical system
Hello All,
I've been lurking on this list for some time and come to the
conclusion that I have little interest in diving into the electrical
design and issues for my Rocket as deeply as is addressed here. My hat
is off to all of you and I am very glad this forum exists as I truly
believe you are accomplishing good things in advancing the technology
for aircraft. But this subject makes my head hurt.
I have lurked enough to form some opinions on what I would like
incorporated into my aircraft. I am now looking for a more simple way
of drawing this out so that I can "connect wire from point A to point
B". Anyone have any ideas ??
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Harmon Rocket
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: | Strobe Light Selection |
I'm about to purchase a strobe/nav/position light kit. Can anyone tell
me if it is better to use an Aeroflash system with the two power
supplys monted in each wing or say a Creative-Air kit with one power
supply that runs sheilded cable the legth of the wing?
Anyone have any comments on either manufatures product?
Thanks,
MIke C.
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: Strobe Light Selection |
Mike,
I've got strobes and power packages in the tips of my wings. Don't know
about reliability issues after 90 hours flight time and 4 years
installed yet,
but the idea of having a wing with more mass at the tips seems a good
idea because of in flight convective. I was surprised at the stability
of my HDS
and the way it cuts through turbulence. Not at all like the C150 I used
to fly. A convective day it would wear you out. The extra weight in the
tips along with usual 6 or 8 gallons in the wing tanks might just be a
factor.
Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
mwcreek@frontiernet.net wrote:
> <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
>
> I'm about to purchase a strobe/nav/position light kit. Can anyone tell
> me if it is better to use an Aeroflash system with the two power
> supplys monted in each wing or say a Creative-Air kit with one power
> supply that runs sheilded cable the legth of the wing?
>
> Anyone have any comments on either manufatures product?
>
> Thanks,
> MIke C.
>
>
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: | Re: inrush limiters for landing lights |
Bill: I have some experience with this. The inrush limiters will save
wear and tear on your switch, breaker and lamps. Cold lamps have very
low resistance, and the inrush current can exceed the switch or breaker
rating as well as thermally shock the lamp filaments.
However, in wig-wag mode the lamps take longer to come up to full
brightness. I modified my wig-wag flasher to increase the flash period
(decrease the rate) so that the lamps will come on fully.
This simply requires the replacement of a capacitor in the flasher, and
it's readily availabe from Radio Shack. Just look at the value that's
in there and double it to start with.
Vern Little, 9A
Bill Boyd wrote:
>
> Bob-
>
> what's you latset thinking about using inline inrush current limiters
> for those of us with halogen 100w landing lights? I'll be using mine
> in wig-wag mode most of the time, and read your archived comments
> about filament cooling in half-second time frames. Will limiters help
> the life of my toggle switch enough to matter? I'm not using a relay
> for that load when in the constant-on mode.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Bill B.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Strobe Light Selection |
Hi Mike,
I had Aeroflash wingtip PS in my Glastar, on one of them the main
condenser failed, as they're custom made you need to get them swapped by
the manufacturer 50$ ticket. Meanwhile I've a central PS with the set
from GS-Air and I'm happy, the Aeroflash lasted about 100hrs, the GS-Air
have over 150 on it by now.
br Werner
mwcreek@frontiernet.net wrote:
> <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
>
> I'm about to purchase a strobe/nav/position light kit. Can anyone
> tell me if it is better to use an Aeroflash system with the two
> power supplys monted in each wing or say a Creative-Air kit with one
> power supply that runs sheilded cable the legth of the wing?
>
> Anyone have any comments on either manufatures product?
>
> Thanks,
> MIke C.
>
>
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: | Nav radios in certified aircraft |
Other than 91.171, are there are rules that specify any particular
certifications that a Nav radio must have for use in IFR in certified
aircraft? The VAL INS-422 appears to be a nice little package to
provide an ILS capability in a single hole, and I'm trying to figure
out if I'm missing something.
Dave Morris
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! --
|