Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:19 AM - Re: Re: dimmer question (Ken)
2. 07:50 AM - Keep alive power requirements (lee.logan@gulfstream.com)
3. 08:54 AM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.)
4. 08:55 AM - Component Enclosure Opinions wanted (mikef)
5. 10:24 AM - Re: Keep alive power requirements (Gilles Thesee)
6. 12:01 PM - Re: Keep alive power requirements (Glaeser, Dennis A)
7. 02:55 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Peter Harris)
8. 03:21 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Peter Harris)
9. 03:47 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Ernest Christley)
10. 04:20 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (Peter Harris)
11. 04:45 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS... (BobsV35B@aol.com)
12. 06:51 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference??? (David M.)
13. 07:55 PM - Re: EFIS as only reference??? (Werner Schneider)
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: dimmer question |
A further thought though Jerry is that if you ever want to add extra
dimmers or resistance to match the intensities of the various lights,
it might be handy to already have all the wires come back to the dimmer
depending on your layout.
Ken
glaesers wrote:
>
>Electrically, it makes no difference, as long as the one wire is capable of
>carrying the current for all 3 lights.
>
>Dennis Glaeser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: dimmer question
>From: Jerry Ricciotti
>Date: Thu Sep 20 - 7:33 AM
>
>Greetings
> I am wiring an RV-8 and have two dimmer controls one of which is for
>back up instruments and a snake/map light. The wire from the back up
>alt,airspeed and mag compass need to be extended to reach the dimmer
>control and I want to know if I can connect them all together to one
>20awg wire that goes to the dimmer control or should they be extended
>separately to the dimmer control? (or does it make no difference)
>
>Jerry
>
>
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: | Keep alive power requirements |
I used the search feature but if there is anything on the list already
about this specifically, I missed it. Does anyone happen to know off the
top of their head which panel mount avionics typically needs a "keep-alive"
power source? I have not provided such power from my battery and now
realize I may have to go back and do a little re-wiring. Here's my list:
Garmin GNC300XL GPS
Garmin GTX 327 Transponder
Garmin SL-30 VOR/VHF
PS Engineering PMA6000MC Audio panel/Intercom
AmeriKing AK 950 Annuciator
JPI EDM 900-6C Engine Monitor
Tru-Trak ADI Pilot II Autopilot
I know this is a longish list, but I'm without my manuals at the moment and
was hoping to be able to work this out fairly quickly.
Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide...
Lee...
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: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Peter,
Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are
not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they
write their own code.
I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some
of the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me
at least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question
how well developed some of these products are when the development
process seems to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only
if you wish)
Background information.
There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs.
non-certificated" products that I would like to make based on my
long-time automotive engineering experience. When an automobile goes
into production, every component has been evaluated and its controlling
drawings have been signed off by a "release engineer." The pieces are
produced in accordance with drawing tolerance as best as machine tools
and human beings can make them. From my auto industry experience,
warranty claims during the late 70s and early 80s were less than 0.25%
(i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower today. For the auto
companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of 1% was deemed a
serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause analysis and
correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone." Yes, the
design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made so
that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time.
Putting the cart before the horse
My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were
MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing.
"Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be
competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they
were recalls.
How this relates to avionics
It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting
edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in
stone."
Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the
cost of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of
serial numbers that represent the length of a production run in a
certain configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that
manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some
real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his
product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own
opinion. For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I
personally subcribe to the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand
opinions."
Summary
As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like
mountain climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially
unforgiving of mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I
am not suggesting the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am
suggesting that purchasers of non-certificated avionics be less in love
with "bells and whistles" and really hold manufacturers accountable for
highly reliable products.
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: | Component Enclosure Opinions wanted |
Hi,
I am upgrading my tube/rag type aircraft electrical system to a Z-19. In doing
this I will need to mount components inside of some kind of enclosure near the
engine (vibration). There is no other room inside the aircraft for such.
Components include: main/eng battery contactors, main bat/eng bat/main power fuse
block bus, ground block, power diodes, OV module, Low voltage module). The
component weight comes to about 6 pounds including wire inside the enclosure.
My choices are narrowed down so far to two types:
1. Nema Fiberglass with see-through latch cover
pros: sturdy, easy to preflight, existing mounting holes, water/oil resistent
cons: heavy (4 lb)
2. Aluminum Chassis box
pros: light (40 oz), easy to preflight with clear lexan cover
cons: .050 thickness aluminum, will have to add sealant to get more waterproof-ness,
mounting a little trickier. Clear lexan cover not standard and removal with
screwdriver, Concern that it will not be sturdy enough.
Your opinions and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135652#135652
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: Keep alive power requirements |
lee.logan@gulfstream.com a crit :
> which panel mount avionics typically needs a "keep-alive"
> power source?
>
> Garmin GNC300XL GPS
> Garmin GTX 327 Transponder
> Garmin SL-30 VOR/VHF
> PS Engineering PMA6000MC Audio panel/Intercom
> AmeriKing AK 950 Annuciator
> JPI EDM 900-6C Engine Monitor
> Tru-Trak ADI Pilot II Autopilot
>
Lee,
I may be wrong, but I don't see anything in your list needing a keep
alive connection.
In my experience a keep alive on the main battery is a sure way to run
the battery down when the airplane sits in the hangar for any length of
time.
So if one is really needed (clock, etc.), why not resort to a small
backup battery, or an internal one ?
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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: Keep alive power requirements |
No keep alive for any of that stuff - I have the same list except for
the engine monitor (mine's a GRT). Unless the unit has a live clock,
like some EFIS's, it won't need any juice.
Dennis Glaeser
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
I used the search feature but if there is anything on the list already
about this specifically, I missed it. Does anyone happen to know off
the
top of their head which panel mount avionics typically needs a
"keep-alive"
power source? I have not provided such power from my battery and now
realize I may have to go back and do a little re-wiring. Here's my
list:
Garmin GNC300XL GPS
Garmin GTX 327 Transponder
Garmin SL-30 VOR/VHF
PS Engineering PMA6000MC Audio panel/Intercom
AmeriKing AK 950 Annuciator
JPI EDM 900-6C Engine Monitor
Tru-Trak ADI Pilot II Autopilot
I know this is a longish list, but I'm without my manuals at the moment
and
was hoping to be able to work this out fairly quickly.
Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide...
Lee...
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: | EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Larry,
I chose the Haltech ECU only because I was offered help from Helmut Frensch
(*retired chief applications engineer for Mitsubishi SA) who had already
pioneered the application and Helmut sent me the fuel maps he was running in
his J3300/Jabiru airframe. The latest Haltech software is Windows friendly.
Because I have a different prop and air frame (Quickie Q-200) and later
realized a different MAP pick up and also a different throttle body I had to
extensively modify the maps. In most cases I think there will always be a
need for final tuning and fortunately this can be done mostly on the ground
in the hangar. I cannot see the laptop screen out doors. My setup allows
manual control of mixture if required for final leaning off to cruise, or to
cool a high EGT in climb . A potentiometer overrides the fuel map.
The Haltech F10 ECU is for fuel only and Helmut decided based on discussions
with Jabiru engineers that there was very little if any advantage in
electronic control of the ignition by ECU except for slow idle and maybe
easier start. But there are advantages in replacing one of the magnetos with
a simple electronic ignition module of fixed timing triggered from the
flywheel. However this F10 fuel ECU has dozens of redundant features and is
far more complex than we need. Helmut's system requires only a trigger (HE
or magnetic), an air temp probe and a vacuum sensor. We are batch firing
into a throttle body, not multipoint delivery. The guiding principle in this
design is KIS.
Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience
for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls,
simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be
OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
I have not surveyed the automotive ECU market because of the reasons
outlined above but I think all of the automotive ECU have become way over
sophisticated for the aircraft application and you are paying a lot of
dollars for development and features that you will never use.
Larry you make some good points about the bells and whistles race. I am not
familiar with the Tru-Track and will take a look at it. I recommend you take
a look at the EC2 and the Megasquirt also.
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L.
Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
Peter,
Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are
not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they
write their own code.
I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some of
the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me at
least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question how
well developed some of these products are when the development process seems
to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only if you wish)
Background information.
There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs. non-certificated"
products that I would like to make based on my long-time automotive
engineering experience. When an automobile goes into production, every
component has been evaluated and its controlling drawings have been signed
off by a "release engineer." The pieces are produced in accordance with
drawing tolerance as best as machine tools and human beings can make them.
>From my auto industry experience, warranty claims during the late 70s and
early 80s were less than 0.25% (i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower
today. For the auto companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of
1% was deemed a serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause
analysis and correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone."
Yes, the design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made
so that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time.
Putting the cart before the horse
My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were
MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing.
"Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be
competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they
were recalls.
How this relates to avionics
It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting
edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in
stone."
Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the cost
of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of serial
numbers that represent the length of a production run in a certain
configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that
manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some
real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his
product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own opinion.
For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I personally subcribe to
the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand opinions."
Summary
As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like mountain
climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially unforgiving of
mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I am not suggesting
the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am suggesting that purchasers
of non-certificated avionics be less in love with "bells and whistles" and
really hold manufacturers accountable for highly reliable products.
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: | EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Larry,
Apologies I see that we are talking about two different animals. The
Tru-Trak EFIS = Electronic Flight Instrumentation. My comments refer to
Electronic Fuel Injection.
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Harris
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
Larry,
I chose the Haltech ECU only because I was offered help from Helmut Frensch
(*retired chief applications engineer for Mitsubishi SA) who had already
pioneered the application and Helmut sent me the fuel maps he was running in
his J3300/Jabiru airframe. The latest Haltech software is Windows friendly.
Because I have a different prop and air frame (Quickie Q-200) and later
realized a different MAP pick up and also a different throttle body I had to
extensively modify the maps. In most cases I think there will always be a
need for final tuning and fortunately this can be done mostly on the ground
in the hangar. I cannot see the laptop screen out doors. My setup allows
manual control of mixture if required for final leaning off to cruise, or to
cool a high EGT in climb . A potentiometer overrides the fuel map.
The Haltech F10 ECU is for fuel only and Helmut decided based on discussions
with Jabiru engineers that there was very little if any advantage in
electronic control of the ignition by ECU except for slow idle and maybe
easier start. But there are advantages in replacing one of the magnetos with
a simple electronic ignition module of fixed timing triggered from the
flywheel. However this F10 fuel ECU has dozens of redundant features and is
far more complex than we need. Helmut's system requires only a trigger (HE
or magnetic), an air temp probe and a vacuum sensor. We are batch firing
into a throttle body, not multipoint delivery. The guiding principle in this
design is KIS.
Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience
for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls,
simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be
OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
I have not surveyed the automotive ECU market because of the reasons
outlined above but I think all of the automotive ECU have become way over
sophisticated for the aircraft application and you are paying a lot of
dollars for development and features that you will never use.
Larry you make some good points about the bells and whistles race. I am not
familiar with the Tru-Track and will take a look at it. I recommend you take
a look at the EC2 and the Megasquirt also.
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L.
Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
Peter,
Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are
not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they
write their own code.
I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some of
the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me at
least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question how
well developed some of these products are when the development process seems
to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only if you wish)
Background information.
There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs. non-certificated"
products that I would like to make based on my long-time automotive
engineering experience. When an automobile goes into production, every
component has been evaluated and its controlling drawings have been signed
off by a "release engineer." The pieces are produced in accordance with
drawing tolerance as best as machine tools and human beings can make them.
>From my auto industry experience, warranty claims during the late 70s and
early 80s were less than 0.25% (i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower
today. For the auto companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of
1% was deemed a serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause
analysis and correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone."
Yes, the design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made
so that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time.
Putting the cart before the horse
My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were
MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing.
"Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be
competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they
were recalls.
How this relates to avionics
It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting
edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in
stone."
Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the cost
of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of serial
numbers that represent the length of a production run in a certain
configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that
manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some
real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his
product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own opinion.
For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I personally subcribe to
the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand opinions."
Summary
As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like mountain
climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially unforgiving of
mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I am not suggesting
the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am suggesting that purchasers
of non-certificated avionics be less in love with "bells and whistles" and
really hold manufacturers accountable for highly reliable products.
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: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Peter Harris wrote:
> Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience
> for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls,
> simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
> less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
> built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be
> OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
>
>
Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the
Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is
that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a
software engineer.
The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control fuel
injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that
meters fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting
the engine on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine
running as long as I have fuel.
The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers that
are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance. I'm
going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the
Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set
advance. If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per
chamber by the other.
I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft.
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: | EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Ernest,
Your set up sounds good. I am interested in your manual valve back up and
would be happy for any details. I looked at the possibility of using a
carburetor as a throttle body but gave up with the aerocarb because it jams.
A suitable butterfly carb would be an option but I like your idea.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
<echristley@nc.rr.com>
Peter Harris wrote:
> Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience
> for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot
controls,
> simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
> less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
> built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also
be
> OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
>
>
Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the
Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is
that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a
software engineer.
The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control fuel
injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that
meters fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting
the engine on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine
running as long as I have fuel.
The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers that
are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance. I'm
going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the
Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set
advance. If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per
chamber by the other.
I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft.
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: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS... |
Good Evening Peter,
Once upon a time in a land far, far, away, I knew a fella that fitted a "T"
fitting in the outlet of his left fuel tank on a Cessna 170. From that
fitting he ran a one eighth inch hunk of brass tubing to a small needle valve
mounted on the instrument panel. From that valve to the throat of the stock
Marvel Schebler carburetor he ran another hunk of brass tubing. Not sure about
the
size of the tubing and fitting used here. That was inserted into a stock
fitting that was screwed into the side of the throat of the carburetor.
My recollection fails me here, but I believe he had bored a hole just above
the throttle valve plate to accommodate the fuel fitting. Not sure though.
In any case, he could turn the fuel valve to off, turn on the needle valve,
adjust the throttle plate and get a rather nice smooth running engine. He had
added that extra fuel source after having had a stock gascolator get plugged
with crud such that no fuel was available to the engine from either fuel
cell.
Strictly illegal, but pretty neat!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 9/21/2007 6:23:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
peterjfharris@bigpond.com writes:
Ernest,
Your set up sounds good. I am interested in your manual valve back up and
would be happy for any details. I looked at the possibility of using a
carburetor as a throttle body but gave up with the aerocarb because it jams.
A suitable butterfly carb would be an option but I like your idea.
Peter
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: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Just curious, but why is it so important to have 2 plugs per cylinder? The
Lycosaurs and etc only have 2 per cylinder because of the jug size. One
plug alone in those engines is not enough to light the fuel evenly
regardless of swirl pattern so that's why they went to 2 per. My wife's
brand new motorcycle has 2 plugs per for the same reason: jug size. :)
David M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> Peter Harris wrote:
>> Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning
>> experience
>> for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot
>> controls,
>> simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
>> less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
>> built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also
>> be
>> OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
>>
>>
>
> Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the
> Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is
> that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a
> software engineer.
>
> The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control fuel
> injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that meters
> fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting the engine
> on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine running as long as
> I have fuel.
>
> The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers that
> are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance. I'm
> going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the
> Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set advance.
> If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per chamber by the
> other.
>
> I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft.
>
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: EFIS as only reference??? |
Hello Peter
> There is no way
> that Windows anything will ever be compatible with a real time safety
> critical system (because it wasn't designed from the outset for that
> task).
Windows with all the overhead I would agree, however the Kernel of it is
used in several certificated Avionics products, look once at the MX-20
when it is booting, it has a Windows 3.51 Kernel which is stable and
secure, just all the fancy tools on top make things complicated and
sometimes unstable.
However I agree I would and will not trust an EFIS on top of a standard
windows operating system.
Werner
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! --
|