Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:40 AM - Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT (David Abrahamson)
2. 04:58 AM - Re: Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT (Chuck Jensen)
3. 05:07 AM - Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT (Ken)
4. 05:10 AM - Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT (Rob Turk)
5. 01:05 PM - STROBES (JOHN TIPTON)
6. 04:58 PM - RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 ()
7. 07:21 PM - Re: STROBES (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:38 PM - Re: Battery Capacity Check (Ron Quillin)
9. 08:39 PM - Re: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 (Wayne Sweet)
10. 08:47 PM - Re: Dimmer for 5 volt lights (Don Vs)
11. 09:33 PM - Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 09:44 PM - Re: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business (Ron Quillin)
13. 10:23 PM - Re: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business (S. Ramirez)
14. 11:08 PM - Re: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business (Peter Harris)
15. 11:35 PM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 (Gilles Thesee)
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: Battery Capacity Check/CHT |
Well, I hope others and Bob chime in on this issue. In the car world
it is said you'll get better gas mileage if you have less electrical
doodads on, and I accept that the alternator puts some drag on the
engine. However, that it puts so much strain on the engine as to
redline the CHT is bizarre. Yours being a pump-pad alternator (I
have one too, in addition to a belt-driven B&C 60A) begs the question
about how much "drag" it -- and a constantly working vacuum pump --
puts on the engine. Perhaps there is data on this issue in the
engineering world?
David
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: Battery Capacity Check/CHT |
A 60amp alternator, operating full out, will draw the equivalent of
something like 1-2 hp, so the redline CHT is unrelated to the engine
load. It's probably unrelated to CH temps also. Given your cited
experience, there seems to be a connection between your electrical
system and the #4 CHT. If you hadn't guessed---not normal.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tinne
maha
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT
--> <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
How about the CHT going in the red? Would the alternator in its "max
effort recharge event" make the engine work that much harder, or was
there some sort of momentary sensor problem? Grant, did power/mixture
settings, environmental conditions, flight attitude change during the
recharging cycle? David
Hi David,
Good question. I've wondered too if the readings were an anomoly or if
the
alternator made the engine work that much harder. Although I was in a
slow
descent (~100-200 fpm), the conditions of the flight remained the same.
I
only had two CHT probes on (Cyls #2 & #4) & only #4 read abnormally
high.
On the other hand, however, on an earlier flight I accidently knocked
the
master to 'Batt Only' for a while & got also got very high CHT readings
on
Cyl #4. So, although I cannot imagine or think of a reason why, I've
noticed the same condition twice now.
I've moved my other CHT probe to Cyl #3 & plan to test the waters again
after I upgrade my b-lead fuse.
The older get, the less I know.
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i'm Initiative now.
It's free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07
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: Battery Capacity Check/CHT |
Even allowing for conversion losses it only takes about 1 hp to generate
about 35 amps at 14 volts. That can make a difference on a race with
millisecond timing but you aren't going to notice it on CHT.
Something else is going on. Is your instrument powered by the battery
and sensitive to voltage? Do you have a bad ground in the alternator
circuit such that one of the CHT wires is carrying a smidgeon of
alternator current? Magnetic coupling between the B+ line and the CHT wires?
Ken
David Abrahamson wrote:
> <dave@abrahamson.net>
>
> Well, I hope others and Bob chime in on this issue. In the car world
> it is said you'll get better gas mileage if you have less electrical
> doodads on, and I accept that the alternator puts some drag on the
> engine. However, that it puts so much strain on the engine as to
> redline the CHT is bizarre. Yours being a pump-pad alternator (I have
> one too, in addition to a belt-driven B&C 60A) begs the question about
> how much "drag" it -- and a constantly working vacuum pump -- puts on
> the engine. Perhaps there is data on this issue in the engineering
> world?
> David
>
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: Battery Capacity Check/CHT |
Your B&C alternator delivers 12V x 60A = 720W of electricity at maximum
rating. Assuming (big assumption) that the alternator is about 75%
efficient, that would be about 1KW or 1.3 HP of energy taken from the
engines output. You can apply the same formula to the pump-pad driven
version.
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahamson" <dave@abrahamson.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Capacity Check/CHT
> <dave@abrahamson.net>
>
> Well, I hope others and Bob chime in on this issue. In the car world it
> is said you'll get better gas mileage if you have less electrical doodads
> on, and I accept that the alternator puts some drag on the engine.
> However, that it puts so much strain on the engine as to redline the CHT
> is bizarre. Yours being a pump-pad alternator (I have one too, in
> addition to a belt-driven B&C 60A) begs the question about how much "drag"
> it -- and a constantly working vacuum pump --
> puts on the engine. Perhaps there is data on this issue in the
> engineering world?
> David
>
>
>
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 |
|
Hi Bob
I've heard that to buy you're strobe kit too far in advance of fitting (and
running) could be a bad idea: it has been said that the strobes should be
'run up' every so often !!!
Please advise
John
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: | RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 |
5/13/2007
Hello Dean,
You wrote: "Anyone using RG-142 for your antenna runs? Is it for
transponder or GPS? Or both?"
I used either RG 400 or RG 142 for all of my coax installations.
RG 400 and RG 142 are both superior to RG 58 in performance and material. RG
400 has a multistranded core and RG 142 has a solid core. Some people favor
RG 400 over RG 142 because of the greater flexibility and resistance to
flexing fatigue failure.
RG 142 is a bit easier to work with when installing connections such as BNC.
There are avionics shops that will refuse to install RG 58 in your
airplane -- with good reason I think.
Look at RG 58 here:
http://www.belden.com/pdfs/MasterCatalogPDF/PDFS_links%20to%20docs/06_Coax/6.72_6.77.pdf
RG 400 here:
http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-128-rg400-id-74-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
And Rg 142 here:
http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-060-rg142-id-64-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand
knowledge.
-----------------------------------------------
Time: 11:07:05 PM PST US
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG-142 Coax
When I was at Gulf Coast Avionics getting a bunch of stuff a couple years
ago I ended up with a roll of RG-58 coax and a small amount of RG-142 coax.
I don't remember whether the RG-142 was for my GPS antenna or the
transponder. RG-142 looks very much like RG-400 and if you didn't look at
the markings you would easily mistake it for RG-400. Anyone using RG-142
for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both? Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Final wiring tasks.
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 |
|
At 09:04 PM 5/13/2007 +0100, you wrote:
><jmtipton@btinternet.com>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>I've heard that to buy you're strobe kit too far in advance of fitting (and
>running) could be a bad idea: it has been said that the strobes should be
>'run up' every so often !!!
>
>Please advise
>
>John
This is a hangar myth that has roots going waaaayyy back into
the history of the electrolytic capacitors for strobe lamps.
Yess . . . electrolytics stored for VERY long periods of time
do lose their "form" . . . and it's prudent to "reform" them
with specific techniques that involve charging the capacitor
through a current limited source and perhaps even stepping the
voltage up over time starting at 50% of rated and 10% steps
thereafter.
The quality and capability of capacitors has grown since
this idea was first cultivated. I've got 400v electrolytics
on the shelf right now with date codes back in the early 90s
and I'll bet if I juiced them right now with 400v they would
be just fine . . . and certainly there are no concerns with
storing a new system for a mere couple of years.
My 500v adjustable power supply is loaned out right now
but when it gets back, I'll drag out some old caps and see
what their pre and post forming capacity is and how they
behave during application of normal operating voltages.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
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: Battery Capacity Check |
At 05:11 5/13/2007, you wrote:
>
>Your B&C alternator delivers 12V x 60A = 720W of electricity at
>maximum rating. Assuming (big assumption) that the alternator is
>about 75% efficient, that would be about 1KW or 1.3 HP of energy
>taken from the engines output. You can apply the same formula to the
>pump-pad driven version.
>
>Rob
Good stuff Rob, you beat me to it.
For those not wanting to do the math, 746 watts equals 1 HP.
I might quibble that the B&C, or any other charging device, actually
delivers closer to 14 volts and for a 60A output is closer to 840W
output, but that's a minor nit.
What all this talk did was finally prod me into doing a load and
endurance test of a Concorde RG-35AXC, new in October 2006. From
calculations and actual measurements we've determined our "normal"
load is about 37 amps, and after load shedding to "essential"
equipment it drops to ~11 or 12 amps. All the essential equipment
installed is rated to 10.0 volts minimum.
The first test was per the ICAW, as nearly as I could replicate
without a constant current load.
The second test assumed an alternator failure at time zero with a
fully charged battery. We have a JPI EDM-800 installed with the bus
voltage alarm set point at 12.0 volts and tested it will annunciate
at that voltage. At 20 minutes (+/- one minute) into the test we
reached 12.0 volts and shed to essential at ~12.5 amps. Again, not
having a constant current load, adjustments were necessiated during
the test. However this time they were to maintain constant load
power, as newer avionics will increase their current draw with
decreasing supply voltage. Here I've tried to maintain ~140 to 150
watts. Note the adjustments at 1:00, 2:00, 2:30 and 2:45 into the test.
It was a pleasant surprise to find we have better than two hours endurance!
That battery delivered over 2.5kW/Hr of power.
Pics of the test setup and raw data upon request.
Ron Q.
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: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 |
FWIW (a lot if a 430W is involved), Garmin requires RG400 coax when
upgrading to a GNS430/530W along with a new (different) antenna. And, a
gotcha, the connectors for the RG400 are NOT the same as those for the RG58.
Also if one is contemplating upgrading their 430/530, the antenna's come
with a TNC connector vice a BNC, another gotcha.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
<dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:57 PM
Subject: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 5/13/2007
>
> Hello Dean,
>
> You wrote: "Anyone using RG-142 for your antenna runs? Is it for
> transponder or GPS? Or both?"
>
> I used either RG 400 or RG 142 for all of my coax installations.
>
> RG 400 and RG 142 are both superior to RG 58 in performance and material.
> RG 400 has a multistranded core and RG 142 has a solid core. Some people
> favor RG 400 over RG 142 because of the greater flexibility and resistance
> to flexing fatigue failure.
>
> RG 142 is a bit easier to work with when installing connections such as
> BNC. There are avionics shops that will refuse to install RG 58 in your
> airplane -- with good reason I think.
>
> Look at RG 58 here:
>
> http://www.belden.com/pdfs/MasterCatalogPDF/PDFS_links%20to%20docs/06_Coax/6.72_6.77.pdf
>
> RG 400 here:
>
> http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-128-rg400-id-74-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
>
> And Rg 142 here:
>
> http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-060-rg142-id-64-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
>
>
> OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Time: 11:07:05 PM PST US
> From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG-142 Coax
>
>
> When I was at Gulf Coast Avionics getting a bunch of stuff a couple years
> ago I ended up with a roll of RG-58 coax and a small amount of RG-142
> coax.
> I don't remember whether the RG-142 was for my GPS antenna or the
> transponder. RG-142 looks very much like RG-400 and if you didn't look at
> the markings you would easily mistake it for RG-400. Anyone using RG-142
> for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both? Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Final wiring tasks.
>
>
>
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: | Dimmer for 5 volt lights |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dimmer for 5 volt lights
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:17 PM 4/9/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I am looking gor a recopmendation on purchase of a dimmer system for 5 volt
>panel lights. My AC has a 14 volt system and the people who are building
an
>ecgraved panel for me recomended 5 volt lights vs 14 volt because they last
>considerably longer.So, does anyone know of a good dimmer with a masx
output
>of 5 volts with 14 volts in? Thanks. Don
It just so happens that I'm building one for a customer. Details
are not finalized yet but it looks like the critter will be rated
at 0.7 to 5.0 volts output at up to 4A. It will be packaged in
the same enclosure as shown on page 2 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
I'll know more in about a week. Prototyping parts are expected
here later this week but I won't be able to play with them
until next week.
I think the price will be something on the order of $55
and will include the externally mounted dimmer control
pot.
The part number will be AEC9033-1.
Bob . . .
Bob,
any progress on the dimmer?
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
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: | Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
I just e-mailed the necessary folks at Hawker-Beechcraft that I'm
retiring from that activity after 13 years and 10 days. They're
just not doing any real EE design work any more.
I'll be joining forces with a gray-matter consortium here in
Wichita. We've already got a firm request and a couple of tentative
inquiries about developing the best we know how to do in flap and
pitch trim actuation systems. This is going to be fun!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
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: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
As a start-up?
They can be great fun.
Best wishes, and hope you won't need any luck!
Ron Q.
At 22:32 5/13/2007, you wrote:
>I just e-mailed the necessary folks at Hawker-Beechcraft that I'm
>retiring from that activity after 13 years and 10 days. They're
>just not doing any real EE design work any more.
>
>I'll be joining forces with a gray-matter consortium here in
>Wichita. We've already got a firm request and a couple of tentative
>inquiries about developing the best we know how to do in flap and
>pitch trim actuation systems. This is going to be fun!
>
>
> 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: | Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe
business
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
I just e-mailed the necessary folks at Hawker-Beechcraft that I'm retiring
from that activity after 13 years and 10 days. They're just not doing any
real EE design work any more.
I'll be joining forces with a gray-matter consortium here in Wichita. We've
already got a firm request and a couple of tentative inquiries about
developing the best we know how to do in flap and pitch trim actuation
systems. This is going to be fun!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
Bob,
Who is doing the real EE work for Hawker-Beechcraft?
Congrats on your new job. I'm sure you will love it.
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
LEZ N-44LZ
Oviedo, FL 32765 USA
Copyright C 2007
--------------------------------
( "Is Max Planck's Constant?" )
( )
( -Unknown )
--------------------------------
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: | Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
Congratulations Bob and good success with the new enterprise.!
Peter H
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe
business
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
I just e-mailed the necessary folks at Hawker-Beechcraft that I'm
retiring from that activity after 13 years and 10 days. They're
just not doing any real EE design work any more.
I'll be joining forces with a gray-matter consortium here in
Wichita. We've already got a firm request and a couple of tentative
inquiries about developing the best we know how to do in flap and
pitch trim actuation systems. This is going to be fun!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
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: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 |
<w_sweet@comcast.net>
> the connectors for the RG400 are NOT the same as those for the RG58.
Wayne,
I installed a Garmin 400 series in our project with RG400 and regular
"RG58" connectors. Works great.
And yes, the connector at the unit end is a TNC, but the installation
technique is the same as a BNC.
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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! --
|