---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 05/13/07: 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:40:51 AM PST US From: David Abrahamson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:58:30 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT From: "Chuck Jensen" 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 --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:07:15 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:10:39 AM PST US From: "Rob Turk" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:39 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 5 _____________________________________ Time: 01:05:37 PM PST US From: "JOHN TIPTON" Subject: AeroElectric-List: STROBES 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:58:35 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:21:57 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: STROBES At 09:04 PM 5/13/2007 +0100, you wrote: > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:38:01 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Capacity Check From: Ron Quillin 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:39:28 PM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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: Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 > --> Avionics-List message posted by: > > 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:29 PM PST US From: "Don Vs" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:33:16 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:44:17 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business From: Ron Quillin 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:23:43 PM PST US From: "S. Ramirez" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:08:11 PM PST US From: "Peter Harris" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:17 PM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.