Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:36 AM - Re: Connecting a Garmin (Apollo) SL40 COM to a PS Engineering PMA4000 Audio Panel (Steve Glasgow)
2. 05:13 AM - CDI Switch? ()
3. 06:03 AM - Re: best contactor reliability -- mechanical, solid state, or manual? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:23 AM - Re: Connecting a Garmin (Apollo) SL40 COM to a PS Engineering PMA4000 Audio Panel (Ron Quillin)
5. 06:41 AM - Re: Plane-Power (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:43 AM - Where to start (Alan K. Adamson)
7. 07:23 AM - Re: CDI Switch? (Eric M. Jones)
8. 08:10 AM - Re: best contactor reliability -- mechanical, solid state, or ma (Eric M. Jones)
9. 08:45 AM - Re: Where to start (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:26 AM - Re: Where to start (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 09:49 AM - Semi-Custom Products (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 12:00 PM - Re: Where to start (Alan Adamson)
13. 02:13 PM - Re: Garmin 430 transmitter problem (David Abrahamson)
14. 02:30 PM - Re: S700 2-50 Switch / Electric Fuel Pump (Frank Stringham)
15. 05:37 PM - Re: Re: S700 2-50 Switch / Electric Fuel Pump (Frank Stringham)
16. 06:29 PM - Switch guards, switch locks, locking switches? (Christopher Barber)
17. 06:29 PM - Switch guards, switch locks, locking switches? (Christopher Barber)
18. 07:34 PM - Re: Switch guards, switch locks, locking switches? (John McMahon)
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: Connecting a Garmin (Apollo) SL40 COM to a PS Engineering |
PMA4000 Audio Panel
I'm just about to go through the same thing only with an SL30. If you
call Tony at Stark Avionics I'm sure he will have the correct answer.
He has been very helpful in my other endeavors so far.
Steve Glasgow-Cappy
N123SG RV-8
Cappy's Toy
704-362-0005 Home
704-281-7884 Cell
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 |
|
7/14/2007
Hello Eric, Great equipment choice. Switching can be done with a mulltiple
pole remote relay controlled by a push button switch that shows which mode
you are in.
Ameri-King has some relays:
http://www.ameri-king.com/
So does Northern Airborne Technology, but their web site is pretty opaque.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
Time: 02:32:38 PM PST US
From: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: CDI Switch?
What's the best way to switch the CDI input from GPS-WAAS to Nav1 to Nav2?
I have the Garmin GI106A, GNS430W, SL30 combination.
The GNS430W allows you to switch between GPS-WAAS and NAV1 internally.
Also the GNS430W and the SL30 are feeding GPS/VOR/ILS to the Blue
Mountian(BMA) EFIS/One.
The GNS430W via an analog connection and SL30 via the serial link.
The BMA autopilot is only able to be driven by the BMA EFIS/One.
Sincerely,
ERic--
RV-10, N104EP
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: best contactor reliability -- mechanical, solid |
state, or manual?
At 05:27 AM 7/13/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>On 13 Jul 2007, at 04:38, D Wysong wrote:
>
>>
>>I have a remotely operated application where the loss of the master
>>battery contactor will result in the loss of data/money/time (...
>>and dignity!). My baseline design resembles a "Z" diagram (thanks
>>Bob!) and I planned to use a mechanical, continuous duty contactor
>>like the S-701 from B&C. However, a buddy of mine recently
>>experienced a contactor failure in flight and it caused me to
>>experience a few "What If!?" nightmares. I'm back to reconsidering
>>my original decision...
Help us with a bit more information about your application.
What kind of vehicle? What kind of environment? What's the
energy requirement to maintain data in vulnerable systems.
It's often much easier to arrange for brownout and/or momentary
power loss for a few items than to back-up the whole system.
Finally, it's almost always better to have a plan-a/plan-b
modus operandi than to scratch around for "more reliable"
hardware. EVERYTHING will break at some point in time.
Give us a rundown of your equipment that must stay awake
and what the power requirements are.
Bob . . .
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: Connecting a Garmin (Apollo) SL40 COM to a PS |
Engineering PMA4000 Audio Panel
At 20:28 7/13/2007, you wrote:
>What I'd like is for some to confirm that they match up (are
>connected ) as follows:
>
>Headphone - 14 to Com 1 Audio HI - Top -19
>Audio Ground - 13 to Com 1 Audio LO - Top - 7
>Mic 1 - 8 to Com Mic Audio HI - Bottom - 21
>Mic Ground - 7 to Com 1 Audio LO - Bottom 9
>TxKey - 4 to Com 1 PTT - Bottom - 22
>
>Thanks for suffering thought these details with me. It seems that
>PS Engineering refers to the ground as "LO" consistently.
>
>Jeff Davidson
Should work fine Jeff, as you've indicated.
-Back in the days-, before all our new solid state electronics, many
audio systems were truly 'balanced'; that is for increased noise
rejections capability neither signal was ground referenced, but
referenced to one another. A ground referenced shield covered the
pair. Low signal level signals, microphone lines for example, are
still, in professional systems, done this way. However, the higher
level 'line' level signals, that used to be 500 or 600 ohm balanced
lines, have for the most part become single-ended; with a high signal
and a ground return completing the path. You will note most of our
com radios have a ~500 ohm output and most intercoms and audio panels
have their input impedance spec'd as ~500 ohms despite the fact
generally in newer equipment neither really is. It's a carry over
for compatibility with as MS would name, legacy equipment. But still
a good idea when properly implemented and interconnected.
Problem here with 'single ended (not balanced) systems' is that the
signal will "see" any stray currents and voltage drops through the
resistance of the real world as an additional voltage. That
additional voltage will appear as unwanted noise, or whatever, with
the signal we desire; an especially bothersome issue with the low
level signals our microphones provide. With the higher level line
signals it's less a problem, but is just ignored by many
manufacturers. PS, to their credit, didn't ignore the real or old
world and provisioned their equipment with both hi and low inputs for
those wishing to use shielded twisted pair cable to reduce noise in
all interconnects. While their "lo" may still be very similar to
ground, it is still provided and by following their IM one can end up
with an audio system having greater immunity to externally generated
noise; this by running the 'lo' along with the 'hi' and not using
the airframe as the signal return.
It's very important to keep the microphone jack mounting bushing, and
to a lessor degree the headphone as well, insulated from the airframe
and rely on the LO wire to provide that connection. To not do so
negates the advantage of what PS has provided us.
Ron Q.
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 |
|
At 01:36 PM 7/12/2007 -0500, you wrote:
><david.nelson@pobox.com>
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I was just curious if you had had any time to explore any of Plane-Power's
>internally regulated alternators on that fancy alternator stand?
>
>Thanks,
No. My duties with an ageing father in Medicine Lodge, putting
down new hardwood floors on my house and needs of my
new clients (out of town 4 days last week and 3 days next
week) have push my drive-stand project back into the corner.
Actually, I have no particular plans to test Plane-Power's
products. They are wired exactly the same architecture
and alternator control philosophy that you would get if
if you did a B&C LR-3 installation on an externally
regulated alternator . . . or figure Z-11 from the book.
I intend to explore the energy questions on alternators
in general with a goal of achieving positive on/off, any time,
any conditions control of an internally regulated alternator
that is NOT modified per the Plane Power manufacturing
philosophy. I.e. off the shelf automotive.
I can deduce no reason to be skeptical of Plane Power's
product performance claims.
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 |
|
Ok, so I'm doing a little remote diagnostics. I've got a friend who has a
dual battery, dual alternator system. It's flown for 75 hrs with no
problems and now has developed an odd on.
It uses 2 12v Odyssey batteries, and a regular Continental alternator and an
SD-20 both regulated with B&C LR3's.
Charging starts out fine and in about 15 mins, both alternators shut off and
he's on battery only until he descends to a lower altitude (not predictable)
or shuts down the electrical for some time and then brings both Alts back on
line. We've tried the turn on a load, turn off a load routing, also he had
been flying with his crosstie on all the time and this last flight he stared
with crosstie on and then turned it off and it made no difference.
Anyone care to offer the short version of where to start and what to look
for besides the obvious, wire loose, connector broken, ground failed, etc?
Thanks in advance,
Alan
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 |
|
I think Perihelion Design has a relay for the job. (Originally a B Nuckolls design).
http://www.periheliondesign.com/18polerelays.htm
Parts list and PCB design are free for the asking. Assembled unit is cheap.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123775#123775
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: best contactor reliability -- mechanical, solid |
state, or ma
Some reuse from an email to a customer here...)
Compare---
____________________Type 70_____GX-11
Weight.........................12.5 Oz.............18 Oz
Temp...........................50 DegC...........75-85 DegC
(50 degC 122 F) makes the type 70 unusable....
Position........................Cap Down..........Any
Environmental...............Dust-Proof.........Hermetically sealed
Coil Suppression............Must be added....Built in
B&C Type 70 uses diodes, GX-11 uses transorbs (SnapJacks!)
Continuous Amps............80 at 50C..........150A at 75C
Inrush A.........................150...................500-2000
Open against Vmax.......... 35V.................>>100V
(...same as Kilovac)
Hold current.....................1.0 A................700 mA
(Kilovac is 100 mA, Gigavac has lower hold currents on request)
G-force opening...............2G ??................>>10G
Anyway the GX11 will be about $120, but the Type 70 ($37.00 from Newark) is not
really useable in my opinion. You may want the accessory contacts and long leads...couldn't
hurt.
The Kilovac EV200aaana (aka Blue Sea 9014) is still great (similar to the Gigavac
GX11).
The type 70 is problematic even if very common and long in the tooth. It is deficient
in three main areas:
1) Poor coil suppression (this can be retrofitted to improve it)
2) Inadequate operating temperature. My GUESS is that the early ones had fiber/bakelite
interiors, now they are Nylon. Regardless 122F spec is way too low to
use.
3) Inadequate G force withstand. 2G ??
4) Open against Vmax. 35V. They caould sustain an arc if the alternator runs away.
Pure solid state solutions are not quite ready. I have experimented with this,
and continue to do so. There are some remarkable devices in development.
Mechanical contactors--"Flaming River" seems to come up when people talk about
quality. I would like some people to describe what happens to lower quality mechanical
contactors, but I haven't heard details.
"The despotism of custom is everywhere...the standing hindrance to human advancement."
--John Stuart Mill
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123780#123780
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: Where to start |
At 09:42 AM 7/14/2007 -0400, you wrote:
><aadamson@highrf.com>
>
>Ok, so I'm doing a little remote diagnostics. I've got a friend who has a
>dual battery, dual alternator system. It's flown for 75 hrs with no
>problems and now has developed an odd on.
>
>It uses 2 12v Odyssey batteries, and a regular Continental alternator and an
>SD-20 both regulated with B&C LR3's.
>
>Charging starts out fine and in about 15 mins, both alternators shut off and
>he's on battery only until he descends to a lower altitude (not predictable)
>or shuts down the electrical for some time and then brings both Alts back on
>line. We've tried the turn on a load, turn off a load routing, also he had
>been flying with his crosstie on all the time and this last flight he stared
>with crosstie on and then turned it off and it made no difference.
>
>Anyone care to offer the short version of where to start and what to look
>for besides the obvious, wire loose, connector broken, ground failed, etc?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Alan
The airplane should be flown with the CROSS-TIE OPEN. This is
the whole purpose of dual, independent systems is to eliminate
the possibility of a failure affecting both systems. If leaving
the cross tie open does not change the observed phenomenon,
then I suspect a wiring error. The cross-tie contactor is, for
some reason remaining closed. There has to be something else
going on as well. The only thing I can think of that would
have such a profound effect on both systems is a flaky ground
connection between crankcase and firewall ground stud.
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: Where to start |
At 10:46 AM 7/14/2007 -0600, you wrote:
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 09:42 AM 7/14/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>><aadamson@highrf.com>
>>
>>Ok, so I'm doing a little remote diagnostics. I've got a friend who has a
>>dual battery, dual alternator system. It's flown for 75 hrs with no
>>problems and now has developed an odd on.
>>
>>It uses 2 12v Odyssey batteries, and a regular Continental alternator and an
>>SD-20 both regulated with B&C LR3's.
>>
>>Charging starts out fine and in about 15 mins, both alternators shut off and
>>he's on battery only until he descends to a lower altitude (not predictable)
>>or shuts down the electrical for some time and then brings both Alts back on
>>line. We've tried the turn on a load, turn off a load routing, also he had
>>been flying with his crosstie on all the time and this last flight he stared
>>with crosstie on and then turned it off and it made no difference.
>>
>>Anyone care to offer the short version of where to start and what to look
>>for besides the obvious, wire loose, connector broken, ground failed, etc?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>Alan
>
> The airplane should be flown with the CROSS-TIE OPEN. This is
> the whole purpose of dual, independent systems is to eliminate
> the possibility of a failure affecting both systems. If leaving
> the cross tie open does not change the observed phenomenon,
> then I suspect a wiring error. The cross-tie contactor is, for
> some reason remaining closed. There has to be something else
> going on as well. The only thing I can think of that would
> have such a profound effect on both systems is a flaky ground
> connection between crankcase and firewall ground stud.
Got my keyboard cord tangled around my eyeteeth and couldn't
see what I was typing. Ignore all the above about cross-tie
operation. I can see that I'd mis-read the significance of
the cross-tie switch in your dissertation of observed events.
Check out that grounding thing.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
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: | Semi-Custom Products |
I've been working on a line of new products for the
AeroElectric Connection website that will be unique
to AEC. We're going to resist being a dealer for other
folks products.
One project utilizes an ECB and enclosure that has
features described in these two illustrations:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/A15_Package.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Do-Much_Board_Schematic.pdf
The schematic would never have ALL components installed,
and in some cases, components left of are replaced with
solid jumpers. However, depending on what parts are installed,
their values, and what software is installed in the microcontroller,
we can craft a variety of products with 98% commonality
of bill of materials.
The first product to be offered under this design and
marketing philosophy is described at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
. . . except that it will have a 15-pin connector on it
instead of a 9-pin.
I'm publishing the schematic for the more technically
inclined. Perhaps the architecture will suggest an application
close to your own wishes for a smart black box to do some
task. If so, let's talk about it and see if my software
guy can't whip it out in reasonably short order and save
you a lot of development time to craft a nicely packaged
electro-whizzy. Or, if you want to do your own byte-pudding
I could offer you a kit of ECB and enclosure from which
you could move your project ahead.
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 |
|
Thanks Bob, and that is where we are going to start.
Couple more tidbits... In talking with my friend. I found another strange
oddity. He has enunciator lights that are connected to the LV warnings on
the VR's, but they never went on. Also in talked with him, he said he has a
"test" curcuit for his annunciators and only those 2 don't light.
So, I think there is a couple of things we need to look at... The ground
issues in general and the annunciation system. Something is allowing the
alternators to start charging and then to drop off line at some point, but
because the LV warnings don't flicker, he doesn't find out about the event
until the engine monitor determines an LV condition and screams in his
ear...
At least we have some places to start.... If you think the LV curcuit being
open might have a residual effect let us know that too...
Thanks as always,
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Where to start
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:46 AM 7/14/2007 -0600, you wrote:
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 09:42 AM 7/14/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>><aadamson@highrf.com>
>>
>>Ok, so I'm doing a little remote diagnostics. I've got a friend who
>>has a dual battery, dual alternator system. It's flown for 75 hrs
>>with no problems and now has developed an odd on.
>>
>>It uses 2 12v Odyssey batteries, and a regular Continental alternator
>>and an SD-20 both regulated with B&C LR3's.
>>
>>Charging starts out fine and in about 15 mins, both alternators shut
>>off and he's on battery only until he descends to a lower altitude
>>(not predictable) or shuts down the electrical for some time and then
>>brings both Alts back on line. We've tried the turn on a load, turn
>>off a load routing, also he had been flying with his crosstie on all
>>the time and this last flight he stared with crosstie on and then turned
it off and it made no difference.
>>
>>Anyone care to offer the short version of where to start and what to
>>look for besides the obvious, wire loose, connector broken, ground failed,
etc?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>Alan
>
> The airplane should be flown with the CROSS-TIE OPEN. This is
> the whole purpose of dual, independent systems is to eliminate
> the possibility of a failure affecting both systems. If leaving
> the cross tie open does not change the observed phenomenon,
> then I suspect a wiring error. The cross-tie contactor is, for
> some reason remaining closed. There has to be something else
> going on as well. The only thing I can think of that would
> have such a profound effect on both systems is a flaky ground
> connection between crankcase and firewall ground stud.
Got my keyboard cord tangled around my eyeteeth and couldn't
see what I was typing. Ignore all the above about cross-tie
operation. I can see that I'd mis-read the significance of
the cross-tie switch in your dissertation of observed events.
Check out that grounding thing.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
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: | Re: Garmin 430 transmitter problem |
I received the following advice from a local avionics tech.
"First thing I would look at is the Com1 circuit breaker. The 430
has two power circuits... one for the com and one for the
nav/gps. The nav/gps will light the unit up and allow the Nav and
GPS to work, but if the com side isn't getting any (or is getting
low) voltage, then you would have transmission issues. So check the
breaker to make sure it isn't giving a high resistance when closed,
and that you have voltage going to the power pins on the com
plug. It might just be best to replace the com breaker with a new
one just to be sure. The next would be to swap com coaxes between
the SL30 and the 430. If it follows the antenna, then you know it is
the coax, antenna, or bonding issue. If it doesn't then you know you
have an issue with the 430 transmitter."
I haven't had a chance to go back out to the airport yet, but the
very first thing I will check will be that I have a good ground to
the 430's com circuit. Then, his suggestions. FWIW, one
of Garmin's Aviation Field Service Engineers replied to my email
with "This sounds like a problem in the GNS430 itself and will need
to come back for repair."
I'll advise what I find and do.
David
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: S700 2-50 Switch / Electric Fuel Pump |
Finishing up the switch wiring on my RV7A Panel. I am using Z13/8 to wire
the aircraft. I am using the S700 2-50 switch to activiate my electric fuel
pump. The momentary switch up side primes the engine and the full on down
would be used incase of the primary fuel pump failure. The engine id fuel
injected. Now the question. I am not quite sure how to wire this switch up
to make all of this happen.....
Frank @ SGU RV7A Panel/Wiring just about ready to hang the engine....when
he gets here!!!
_________________________________________________________________
http://liveearth.msn.com
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: S700 2-50 Switch / Electric Fuel Pump |
Answer found............Page 11-2 AeroElectric connections. Once again
thanks Bob......
Now back to tryinjg to find other obvious things known to most that i can
ask questions about
Frank @ SGU RV7A Panel/Electrical
>From: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: S700 2-50 Switch / Electric Fuel Pump
>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:28:52 -0600
>
><fstringham@hotmail.com>
>
>Finishing up the switch wiring on my RV7A Panel. I am using Z13/8 to wire
>the aircraft. I am using the S700 2-50 switch to activiate my electric fuel
>pump. The momentary switch up side primes the engine and the full on down
>would be used incase of the primary fuel pump failure. The engine id fuel
>injected. Now the question. I am not quite sure how to wire this switch up
>to make all of this happen.....
>
>Frank @ SGU RV7A Panel/Wiring just about ready to hang the
>engine....when he gets here!!!
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>http://liveearth.msn.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now!
http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=club_hotmailtextlink1
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: | Switch guards, switch locks, locking switches? |
My project is an all electric bird (Velocity SE) with a rotary engine.
Since if I loose power things get quite I am using Bob's duel
alternator/duel battery set up. What I am curious about is the switches
in the cabin. Currently I have all the switches up high on the panel a
bit right of center towards the co-pilot position. I hope to not have a
passanger who would inadvertanlty flip a switch down and off, HOWEVER,
you never know what may get tangled or a stray move may flip a
switch....in my set up, if my coil switch or primary injectors get
switched off I will start sweating. Also, I don't really mind the
switches where they are, but I do have a couple of other places I would
like them, but I placed them here as to minimize being bumped.
My question is what other options do I have to either guard against
accidental deactivation. I have purchased a couple of aviation locking
toggles from ebay, but they are kinda small and may not be up for the
task (but at $13.00 I couldn't go too wrong...they may work for my coil
switch and primary fuel). The regulare priced DPDT (for my contactors
and injectors) seem to start at close to $60.00 a piece...a bit much for
my police salery if other options will surfice.
I have also considered those installing some of the switch guards you
see in old nuclear missle bunker movies that they would open to expose
the firing buttons for the big ol' missles. I considered installing
them upside down (which is really easy) so that they are on when the
cover is closed thus making the switch impossible to turn off by
mistake. This seems really fool proof, however, the guards, while cheap,
are pretty big and do not look all that, well, elligant.
Also, I was watching the Astronaut Farmer last night on PPV and saw the
little hard wire loops that where installed next to the switches on each
side of the individual switches in his space capsule and this reminded
me of the ones NASA used to use....maybe still do. Donno. These seem
to be just half circles that make grabbing the switch very deliberate
and minimizes potential knocks. Finally, it seems as if I have seen
bars held in by springs that lay across a series of switches to keep
them in place.
What say ye? Insight? Wisdom? Warnings? Observations? WAG's?
Thanks.
All the best,
Chris Barber
Houston
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: | Switch guards, switch locks, locking switches? |
My project is an all electric bird (Velocity SE) with a rotary engine.
Since if I loose power things get quite I am using Bob's duel
alternator/duel battery set up. What I am curious about is the switches
in the cabin. Currently I have all the switches up high on the panel a
bit right of center towards the co-pilot position. I hope to not have a
passanger who would inadvertanlty flip a switch down and off, HOWEVER,
you never know what may get tangled or a stray move may flip a
switch....in my set up, if my coil switch or primary injectors get
switched off I will start sweating. Also, I don't really mind the
switches where they are, but I do have a couple of other places I would
like them, but I placed them here as to minimize being bumped.
My question is what other options do I have to either guard against
accidental deactivation. I have purchased a couple of aviation locking
toggles from ebay, but they are kinda small and may not be up for the
task (but at $13.00 I couldn't go too wrong...they may work for my coil
switch and primary fuel). The regulare priced DPDT (for my contactors
and injectors) seem to start at close to $60.00 a piece...a bit much for
my police salery if other options will surfice.
I have also considered those installing some of the switch guards you
see in old nuclear missle bunker movies that they would open to expose
the firing buttons for the big ol' missles. I considered installing
them upside down (which is really easy) so that they are on when the
cover is closed thus making the switch impossible to turn off by
mistake. This seems really fool proof, however, the guards, while cheap,
are pretty big and do not look all that, well, elligant.
Also, I was watching the Astronaut Farmer last night on PPV and saw the
little hard wire loops that where installed next to the switches on each
side of the individual switches in his space capsule and this reminded
me of the ones NASA used to use....maybe still do. Donno. These seem
to be just half circles that make grabbing the switch very deliberate
and minimizes potential knocks. Finally, it seems as if I have seen
bars held in by springs that lay across a series of switches to keep
them in place.
What say ye? Insight? Wisdom? Warnings? Observations? WAG's?
Thanks.
All the best,
Chris Barber
Houston
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: Switch guards, switch locks, locking switches? |
You might look at www.PerihelionDesign.com<http://www.periheliondesign.com/>
for switch guards......
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)
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! --
|