Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:09 AM - Re: P-mag wiring (Steve Sampson)
2. 05:00 AM - Re: P-mag wiring (Ken)
3. 06:22 AM - Re: Dual Ignition (Ernest Christley)
4. 06:25 AM - Re: P-mag wiring (David & Elaine Lamphere)
5. 07:21 AM - Re: P-mag wiring (Steve Sampson)
6. 07:23 AM - Dual Electronic Ignition (Andrew Butler)
7. 08:02 AM - Re: P-mag wiring (Ken)
8. 08:02 AM - Re: Dual Electronic Ignition (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:03 AM - Re: P-mag wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:06 AM - TruTrak EFIS SG (Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.)
11. 09:48 AM - Re: Dual Electronic Ignition (Carlos Trigo)
12. 01:20 PM - Re: TruTrak EFIS SG (Peter Pengilly)
13. 01:34 PM - Re: P-mag Wiring (Les Davis)
14. 01:55 PM - Re: TruTrak EFIS SG (Ernest Christley)
15. 02:06 PM - Re: Re: P-mag Wiring (Michael Ice)
16. 02:06 PM - Re: TruTrak EFIS SG (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
17. 02:42 PM - Re: TruTrak EFIS SG (BobsV35B@aol.com)
18. 03:00 PM - Re: TruTrak EFIS SG (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
19. 04:11 PM - Re: P-mag wiring (David & Elaine Lamphere)
20. 04:25 PM - Re: Re: P-mag Wiring (David & Elaine Lamphere)
21. 04:34 PM - Re: Dual Ignition (Kelly McMullen)
22. 05:03 PM - Re: Dual Ignition (Kevin Horton)
23. 06:50 PM - Re: P-mag wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 07:20 PM - Re: Dual Electronic Ignition (Andrew Butler)
25. 07:51 PM - Harbor Freight AA cells on sale . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 08:08 PM - Re: TruTrak EFIS SG (Ernest Christley)
27. 08:38 PM - Re: P-mag wiring (David & Elaine Lamphere)
28. 09:12 PM - Re: P-mag wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: P-mag wiring |
I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will also be doing
it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring, however it does cause
more switches than I really want, to control them.
My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
- in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered, buty the
P-lead off.
- in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the power
and P-lead is on.
- in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the self
generation.)
This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's reservation. They
want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on, except for the
momentary test of the self generation.
Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything AND the
switching occur in the order E-mag want?
Thanks, Steve.
On 22/09/2007, Michael T. Ice <aurbo@ak.net> wrote:
>
> *John,*
> **
> *I would be surprised if this response doesn't get deleted. The last
> couple I have submitted have not been posted. But:*
> **
> *Referencing P/E mags I would like to make a comment.*
> *The following comments are my opinions.*
> *
> The wiring diagrams in Bob's Z figures don't agree with the way the P/E
> mag
> folks say to wire their products.
>
> I think it is likely that some of the problems experienced with P/E mags
> is
> because they were wired wrong.
>
> I suggest that if your going to use P/E mags wire them like Emagair says
> and
> follow their directions.
>
> Mike
> *
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John Goldsmith <jgold4747@yahoo.com>
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:25 AM
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: P-mag wiring
>
>
> There was some discussion on this list while Bob was out of town in August
> about the pros and cons of his wiring approach for P-mags (Figure Z-33) vs.
> the "factory" approach. Bob, any comments on this matter? (I'm getting
> very close to needing to make a final decision about this...)
>
> John Goldsmith (RV-7A, serious panel planning starting)
>
>
> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: P-mag wiring |
Steve
FWIW I consider it good cockpit design to have all non guarded switches
full up in the normal position. It may be asking for operator error to
expect one to discern the middle position especially at night or when
checking quickly by feel. So if this works electrically I'd suggest
adding guards that force the switch to the center position when closed.
Ken
Steve Sampson wrote:
> I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will also be
> doing it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring, however it
> does cause more switches than I really want, to control them.
>
> My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
>
> - in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered,
> buty the P-lead off.
> - in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the
> power and P-lead is on.
> - in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the self
> generation.)
>
> This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's reservation.
> They want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on, except
> for the momentary test of the self generation.
>
> Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything
> AND the switching occur in the order E-mag want?
>
> Thanks, Steve.
>
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: Dual Ignition |
Richard, the fact that the mags require "regular maintenance" and
"proper setup" by someone stricken with OCD to work as you describe is
the classical definition of unreliable. You can't 'rely' on the average
hack with wet ink on his A&P license to set it correctly, and the fact
that it needs to be done so often means the hack will be doing it or you
will be. The electronic ignitions are not nearly as reliant on special
training or fine attention to installation and maintenance details. You
plug it in, and if it works, it works as designed.
The fact that the HKS700E was designed to have a significant drop on one
ignition is a red herring. That could have easily been designed in on
purpose so that you would have a definite reassurance that both are
working after the mag check.
The mag is a complicated electromechanical device that is a masterpiece
of engineering. But they are not reliable. Else, why do you carry two
of them around, and why do you check both of them just before takeoff on
every flight?
Richard Girard wrote:
> Peter, Upon what data does your statement, "the average mag is
> horribly unreliable", come from? Properly setup and serviced, quite
> the opposite is true, in my experience. Also your statement that the
> dual ignition is required by jug size is questionable, too.
> Last year while in class to get my LSA repairman maintenance ticket I
> set the up two Slick mags to go into an A75. I set the internal timing
> of the mags so that it was dead on for both, and the engine timing the
> same. The instructor was on the verge of accusing me of having OCD as
> I checked and rechecked until I was satisfied it was as close as I
> could get it. When I was finally satisfied, we pulled the plane out to
> the ramp and started it up. After it was up to operating temp I did a
> mag check. It scared the wits out of me when I got NO mag drop. Now
> the EIS installed on the plane only read in 10 RPM increments, so
> there may have been some drop, but the instrument didn't read it and I
> could neither hear it, nor feel it in the seat of my pants. I thought
> sure I had installed the P leads improperly and was ready to use the
> fuel valve to shut the engine down when the instructor stepped in,
> checked all the connections and pronounced them good. I did a second
> mag check, and still got no detectable drop. I pulled the throttle
> back to idle, closed both mag switches and the engine died just as it
> should. What gives, I always gotten some drop on every plane I've ever
> been in. We pulled out the continuity checker and went over the P
> leads again. Everything was as it should be. Restarted the engine,
> established 1700 RPM and checked again. NO drop. Shut down the left
> mag, let the engine run for a bit and shut down the right mag. The
> engine died. Restarted, shut down the right mag and let the engine
> run. Again, NO mag drop. Killed the left mag, engine died. I'm sure
> the WTFO expression on my face begged an explanation. The instructor,
> whose list of certs look like alphabet soup gone mad, said it's simple
> really. It's a very low time engine (his personal E-AB aircraft, by
> the way) and the students in the class had set everything up as near
> perfect as was humanly possible, hence no discernible mag drop. He
> recounted how many a long faced pilot, discouraged by the $2000 quote
> for parts and labor from another shop has become his loyal customer
> when a new set of points and careful setting of internal mag timing
> and engine timing has restored the mags to proper working order for
> less than a 1/4 of the original estimate.
> Now lets take the other end of the spectrum. I have and HKS700E engine
> on my trike. It's got 40 hours on it. My OCD tendencies when it comes
> to engine variables is as active as ever. It has dual CDI's for each
> of its two diminutive 350cc cylinders. My first "mag" check was a real
> upholstery clincher. I did the check at 3000 RPM and each system
> showed a 500 RPM drop. Needless to say I was in a near panic getting
> to the manuals before I called the importer. Under ignition check it
> said, "engine shouldn't die"! It's taken a bit to get used to, but
> that's the way the little engine is designed. It runs like the
> proverbial sewing machine, otherwise.
> My point is, engine design, system integration, and proper setup has
> much more to do with ignition system performance than reliance on
> OWT's about "horribly unreliable" claims.
>
> Rick
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: P-mag wiring |
Steve,
I have a P-Mag and E-mag that I will be using in my Tailwind. This
summer I wired up (90%) my panel and after much consideration did the
following:
E-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> E-Mag
P-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> momentary off /
normally on SPDT switch (I can get the number if you need it) -> P-Mag
P leads to both units are connected to a "standard" key ignition switch
with the ground connection to one "mag" removed at the start position
(no need to have this with the E/P-Mags).
Of course with the EBUS alt feed switch "off", power is supplied to
anything on the EBUS when the master switch is on.
That's the way I am proceeding...
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Sampson
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-mag wiring
I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will also be
doing it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring, however it
does cause more switches than I really want, to control them.
My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
- in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered,
buty the P-lead off.
- in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the
power and P-lead is on.
- in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the self
generation.)
This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's reservation.
They want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on, except
for the momentary test of the self generation.
Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything
AND the switching occur in the order E-mag want?
Thanks, Steve.
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: P-mag wiring |
Ken, I see your point and would agree normally, but bearing in mind that I
was talking about a momentary switch where it only is full up while you hold
it there (to cut the power and test the self generation capability) and it
then returns to the middle, do you still see that as an objection? I plan to
tuck them in under the panel, its a -4, where nothing will fall down on
them, but well in line of sight.. Since they are on their own it will not be
visually odd. Thanks, Steve.
On 24/09/2007, Ken <klehman@albedo.net> wrote:
>
>
> Steve
> FWIW I consider it good cockpit design to have all non guarded switches
> full up in the normal position. It may be asking for operator error to
> expect one to discern the middle position especially at night or when
> checking quickly by feel. So if this works electrically I'd suggest
> adding guards that force the switch to the center position when closed.
> Ken
>
> Steve Sampson wrote:
>
> > I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will also be
> > doing it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring, however it
> > does cause more switches than I really want, to control them.
> >
> > My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
> >
> > - in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered,
> > buty the P-lead off.
> > - in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the
> > power and P-lead is on.
> > - in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the self
> > generation.)
> >
> > This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's reservation.
> > They want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on, except
> > for the momentary test of the self generation.
> >
> > Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything
> > AND the switching occur in the order E-mag want?
> >
> > Thanks, Steve.
> >
>
>
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: | Dual Electronic Ignition |
Hello,
I am an RV7 builder in Ireland and plan to install dual electronic
ignition. I was eyeing up a Split Bus config, but I think that is
overkill for a VFR machine. So I was looking to vary the Z14 design for
(40A main, 20A aux alts and 16AH main, 7.2AH aux batteries.
Then I saw the Z13/20 variant, All Electric Aeroplane with 20Amp eBus.
This looks perfect, albeit it has one battery. Is it feasible to add a
small battery to this design? If so where is the best to point to
connect?
What is the normal mode of Operation of this design and what is the main
alt out mode? Why is the eBus Alt Master a three position switch?
How would each Alt be tested during the pre-flight check listed?
Thanks for your help,
Andrew Butler.
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: | Re: P-mag wiring |
Hi Steve
A momentary up position switch does sound a bit better if you can find
such a thing but personally I'd still consider such an arrangement to be
not the best. I'd pefer a flip up guard or a separate push to test
button if failure of a separate button would not fail the mag. Another
option that appeals to me would be a lift lock switch that acts like a
two position switch but has to be lifted or pulled to select the third
position. Those come in spring loaded versions as well but either way I
like some arrangement that still lets you confirm the normal on position
by touch alone. Maybe I'm silly but my experience is that we see what
we expect to see and sometimes actually touching and applying pressure
to a switch while checking it reveals that it wasn't where we thought it
was. Certainly the angle of view of the switch is a factor as well. It
is often easier to ascertain a switch positon on the far side of the
cockpit than for the switch directly in front of you. Many pilot errors
are a direct predictable result of poor cockpit design.
Ken
Steve Sampson wrote:
> Ken, I see your point and would agree normally, but bearing in mind
> that I was talking about a momentary switch where it only is full up
> while you hold it there (to cut the power and test the self generation
> capability) and it then returns to the middle, do you still see that
> as an objection? I plan to tuck them in under the panel, its a -4,
> where nothing will fall down on them, but well in line of sight..
> Since they are on their own it will not be visually odd. Thanks, Steve.
>
> On 24/09/2007, Ken <klehman@albedo.net <mailto:klehman@albedo.net>> wrote:
>
> <mailto:klehman@albedo.net>>
>
> Steve
> FWIW I consider it good cockpit design to have all non guarded
> switches
> full up in the normal position. It may be asking for operator
> error to
> expect one to discern the middle position especially at night or when
> checking quickly by feel. So if this works electrically I'd suggest
> adding guards that force the switch to the center position when
> closed.
> Ken
>
> Steve Sampson wrote:
>
> > I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will
> also be
> > doing it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring,
> however it
> > does cause more switches than I really want, to control them.
> >
> > My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
> >
> > - in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered,
> > buty the P-lead off.
> > - in the middle position (and this is the normal flying
> position) the
> > power and P-lead is on.
> > - in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the
> self
> > generation.)
> >
> > This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's
> reservation.
> > They want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on,
> except
> > for the momentary test of the self generation.
> >
> > Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything
> > AND the switching occur in the order E-mag want?
> >
> > Thanks, Steve.
>
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: Dual Electronic Ignition |
At 02:22 PM 9/24/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am an RV7 builder in Ireland and plan to install dual electronic
>ignition. I was eyeing up a Split Bus config, but I think that is overkill
>for a VFR machine. So I was looking to vary the Z14 design for (40A main,
>20A aux alts and 16AH main, 7.2AH aux batteries.
Also overkill.
>Then I saw the Z13/20 variant, All Electric Aeroplane with 20Amp eBus.
>This looks perfect, albeit it has one battery. Is it feasible to add a
>small battery to this design? If so where is the best to point to connect?
Why?
>What is the normal mode of Operation of this design and what is the main
>alt out mode?
Take a look at Z-13/8 and tell us where it falls short of
accommodating your plan-b for any single failure of the
electrical system.
> Why is the eBus Alt Master a three position switch?
OFF/BAT ONLY/BAT+ALT just like the split rocker switch
in the majority of TC single engine aircraft.
>How would each Alt be tested during the pre-flight check listed?
Run each alternator by itself and watch the bus voltage and/or
loadmeter.
The Z-13/20 was not well thought out when I crafted it
and it's going to be removed from future publications.
If Z-13/8 doesn't cut it for you (and it should for 95%
or more of all SE OBAM aircraft flying) then Z-14 is the
next step.
In fact, I just pulled that drawing from the Appendix Z
posting on the website. I cannot imagine a situation where
Z-13/8 won't cut it for you.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
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: P-mag wiring |
At 09:26 AM 9/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Steve,
>
>I have a P-Mag and E-mag that I will be using in my Tailwind. This summer
>I wired up (90%) my panel and after much consideration did the following:
>
>E-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> E-Mag
>
>P-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> momentary off /
>normally on SPDT switch (I can get the number if you need it) -> P-Mag
Electrical items needed for operation of the engine should
be fed from a battery bus. If you have elctrical system problems
and need to shut the master OFF, then you don't want the engine
to stop.
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 |
|
Subsequent to my previous post, I contacted TruTrak. They confirmed
that the operating system for the EFIS SG is NOT Windows based. Rather
it is dedicated code written by their engineers in-house.
The TruTrak EFIS SG is attractive to me because it isn't overloaded with
the "bells and whistles" alluded to in my previous post.
Dynon also writes their own code.
Larry
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: | Dual Electronic Ignition |
Hi Andrew
Sorry for not answering your questions, but I chimed him just to greet you
and to know about your engine.
After giving up the Subaru, with which engine did you go?
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Butler
Sent: segunda-feira, 24 de Setembro de 2007 15:22
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition
Hello,
I am an RV7 builder in Ireland and plan to install dual electronic ignition.
I was eyeing up a Split Bus config, but I think that is overkill for a VFR
machine. So I was looking to vary the Z14 design for (40A main, 20A aux alts
and 16AH main, 7.2AH aux batteries.
Then I saw the Z13/20 variant, All Electric Aeroplane with 20Amp eBus. This
looks perfect, albeit it has one battery. Is it feasible to add a small
battery to this design? If so where is the best to point to connect?
What is the normal mode of Operation of this design and what is the main alt
out mode? Why is the eBus Alt Master a three position switch?
How would each Alt be tested during the pre-flight check listed?
Thanks for your help,
Andrew Butler.
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 |
|
The other good thing about the Trutrak EFIS is that it frames much more
quickly than just about anything else on the market (at 60 Hz IIRC) -
that is probably 3 times faster than anything else at the moment.
>From a previous life I know that fast updates are really good news when
flying in IMC. Lags of > 100ms from the airplane moving to the motion
being shown on the display (either due to slow framing rate or poor
design) have a significant impact on the pilot's ability to fly well.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: 24 September 2007 16:57
Subject: AeroElectric-List: TruTrak EFIS SG
Subsequent to my previous post, I contacted TruTrak. They confirmed
that the operating system for the EFIS SG is NOT Windows based. Rather
it is dedicated code written by their engineers in-house.
The TruTrak EFIS SG is attractive to me because it isn't overloaded with
the "bells and whistles" alluded to in my previous post.
Dynon also writes their own code.
Larry
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: P-mag Wiring |
I'm also in the process of wiring up my dual p-mags. Given the concerns on
this thread and others I'm not comfortable with the best way to proceed.
I've generally followed the Z-11 architecture (batt bus, ebus and main bus)
and have the dual 2-10 and a 1-3 switches to install the pmag wiring per
Fig. Z-33 "Maintenance / Hand Prop Option for E-Mags / PMags".
I'm aware that Emagaire recommends a wiring diagram that seems quite
different than Fig. Z-33. I must admit I don't understand all of the issues
in wiring the manufacturer's way vs. that given in Fig. Z-33 and would
sincerely appreciate any help I can get on the single most important wiring
in my project.
Regards,
Les Davis
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: TruTrak EFIS SG |
Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
> The other good thing about the Trutrak EFIS is that it frames much
> more quickly than just about anything else on the market (at 60 Hz
> IIRC) that is probably 3 times faster than anything else at the moment.
>
> From a previous life I know that fast updates are really good news
> when flying in IMC. Lags of > 100ms from the airplane moving to the
> motion being shown on the display (either due to slow framing rate or
> poor design) have a significant impact on the pilots ability to fly
> well.
>
100ms update rate resolves to 10Hz. Is 60Hz a selling point when most
people can resolve more than about 20Hz? Not saying that it's bad to
update faster, just that it doesn't buy you anything.
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: P-mag Wiring |
Les,
Follow the folks that make them and use their wiring system. It is different then
the Z-11 & 33 but it's the way Emagair suggests. You can't go wrong using the
manufactures wiring diagram. Why do it differently when the Z-11 & 33 schematic
offer no advantage.
Mike ice
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Davis <ldavis_pe@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
>
>
> I'm also in the process of wiring up my dual p-mags. Given the
> concerns on
> this thread and others I'm not comfortable with the best way to
> proceed.I've generally followed the Z-11 architecture (batt bus,
> ebus and main bus)
> and have the dual 2-10 and a 1-3 switches to install the pmag
> wiring per
> Fig. Z-33 "Maintenance / Hand Prop Option for E-Mags / PMags".
>
> I'm aware that Emagaire recommends a wiring diagram that seems quite
> different than Fig. Z-33. I must admit I don't understand all of
> the issues
> in wiring the manufacturer's way vs. that given in Fig. Z-33 and
> wouldsincerely appreciate any help I can get on the single most
> important wiring
> in my project.
>
> Regards,
> Les Davis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Hmm...Never noticed that effect with my Dynon...It never seemed to lag
the real horizon no matter how bad the turbulence.
Frank RV 7a
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: TruTrak EFIS SG
The other good thing about the Trutrak EFIS is that it frames much more
quickly than just about anything else on the market (at 60 Hz IIRC) -
that is probably 3 times faster than anything else at the moment.
>From a previous life I know that fast updates are really good news when
flying in IMC. Lags of > 100ms from the airplane moving to the motion
being shown on the display (either due to slow framing rate or poor
design) have a significant impact on the pilot's ability to fly well.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: 24 September 2007 16:57
Subject: AeroElectric-List: TruTrak EFIS SG
Subsequent to my previous post, I contacted TruTrak. They confirmed
that the operating system for the EFIS SG is NOT Windows based. Rather
it is dedicated code written by their engineers in-house.
The TruTrak EFIS SG is attractive to me because it isn't overloaded with
the "bells and whistles" alluded to in my previous post.
Dynon also writes their own code.
Larry
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> http://forums.matronics.com
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TruTrak EFIS SG |
Good Afternoon Echristley,
I know absolutely nothing about all of those numbers you are mentioning, but
a faster update rate buys you a LOT when you are using the instrument for
flight control.
How do your numbers compare to the Garmin 396 and the Garmin 496 numbers?
While it is possible to use the flight instrument screen on a Garmin 196,
296 or 396 as a back up set of flight instruments, the 496 has a five times
faster update rate than does the 396 and it is a LOT easier to fly.
The faster the update rate, the faster you can notice a turn. Stop the turn
and you will survive. Let the turn go for a few seconds and you will die.
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 9/24/2007 3:57:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
echristley@nc.rr.com writes:
100ms update rate resolves to 10Hz. Is 60Hz a selling point when most
people can resolve more than about 20Hz? Not saying that it's bad to
update faster, just that it doesn't buy you anything.
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 |
|
true, but there is fast and really fast...If I roll my RV as fast it
will go the Dynon tracks the horizon all the way round...How fast do you
need?
Perfectly happy with both my Dynon and Trutrak pictorial pilot in horrid
turbulent IMC...They work great. hard for me to see the benefit of an
increased update rate over and above what I'm getting already.
frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: TruTrak EFIS SG
Good Afternoon Echristley,
I know absolutely nothing about all of those numbers you are mentioning,
but a faster update rate buys you a LOT when you are using the
instrument for flight control.
How do your numbers compare to the Garmin 396 and the Garmin 496
numbers?
While it is possible to use the flight instrument screen on a Garmin
196, 296 or 396 as a back up set of flight instruments, the 496 has a
five times faster update rate than does the 396 and it is a LOT easier
to fly.
The faster the update rate, the faster you can notice a turn. Stop the
turn and you will survive. Let the turn go for a few seconds and you
will die.
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 9/24/2007 3:57:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
echristley@nc.rr.com writes:
100ms update rate resolves to 10Hz. Is 60Hz a selling point when
most
people can resolve more than about 20Hz? Not saying that it's
bad to
update faster, just that it doesn't buy you anything.
________________________________
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
Bob,
Are you saying that WHILE YOU ARE IN FLIGHT the time it takes to switch off
master and switch on Ebus (less than 2 seconds - even with shaking hands -
the switches are next to each other), that the prop will stop before the
Emag will work??? ... and by the way, I'm using a P-Mag also - I believe
that will be happy without power as long as the engine is above low idle...
Seems OK to me... what am I missing??
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-mag wiring
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 09:26 AM 9/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Steve,
>>
>>I have a P-Mag and E-mag that I will be using in my Tailwind. This summer
>>I wired up (90%) my panel and after much consideration did the following:
>>
>>E-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> E-Mag
>>
>>P-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> momentary off /
>>normally on SPDT switch (I can get the number if you need it) -> P-Mag
>
> Electrical items needed for operation of the engine should
> be fed from a battery bus. If you have elctrical system problems
> and need to shut the master OFF, then you don't want the engine
> to stop.
>
> Bob . . .
Message 20
| 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: P-mag Wiring |
I hate to draw this out - but - according to the installation manual,
page 20, we are only talking about one +13.8vdc lead, a circuit breaker
and a test switch (for a PMag, none required for an EMag) plus the
necessary ground. That said, you will note that the manual schematic
shows the +13.8v dc lead coming from the battery contactor (main bus).
IF you ever have to shut down the main bus (disengage the contactor) and
you don't have an alternate source for EMag power... well, you get the
picture.... If you have 2 P-Mags and they are working - no need to be
concerned...
It really isn't THAT complicated an issue.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Ice
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
Les,
Follow the folks that make them and use their wiring system. It is
different then the Z-11 & 33 but it's the way Emagair suggests. You
can't go wrong using the manufactures wiring diagram. Why do it
differently when the Z-11 & 33 schematic offer no advantage.
Mike ice
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Davis <ldavis_pe@cox.net>
Date: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:36 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>
>
> I'm also in the process of wiring up my dual p-mags. Given the
> concerns on
> this thread and others I'm not comfortable with the best way to
> proceed.I've generally followed the Z-11 architecture (batt bus,
> ebus and main bus)
> and have the dual 2-10 and a 1-3 switches to install the pmag
> wiring per
> Fig. Z-33 "Maintenance / Hand Prop Option for E-Mags / PMags".
>
> I'm aware that Emagaire recommends a wiring diagram that seems quite
> different than Fig. Z-33. I must admit I don't understand all of
> the issues
> in wiring the manufacturer's way vs. that given in Fig. Z-33 and
> wouldsincerely appreciate any help I can get on the single most
> important wiring
> in my project.
>
> Regards,
> Les Davis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| 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: Dual Ignition |
You are simply wrong about magnetos. They are one of the simplest
devices going. Yes, they need to be set up correctly, but that is
something than any fresh A&P should be able to do. They may not have the
training and jigs to do the internal overhaul work, but that isn't
needed more than once every 500 hours on all but the meanest
turbocharged beasts. In fact, most good mags will run 1000 hours with no
more than one or two tweaks of the timing, even though they should be
checked at 500. For something with points arcing multiple times a
revolution, that is pretty good. A new or freshly overhauled mag needs
no more than minor care to get installed at the right angle, quick
setting with a buzz box, and they are good for hundreds of hours. I'm
100% certain I can install both mags on an engine and have them ready to
go before you get your electronic gizmos hooked up. And the mags will
keep right on firing whether you have electrics or not, unlike a lot of
electronic systems. Yes, I know about the P-mag. How many 6 cylinder
copies are shipped at this point?
KM
A&P/IA
Ernest Christley wrote:
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> Richard, the fact that the mags require "regular maintenance" and
> "proper setup" by someone stricken with OCD to work as you describe is
> the classical definition of unreliable. You can't 'rely' on the
> average hack with wet ink on his A&P license to set it correctly, and
> the fact that it needs to be done so often means the hack will be
> doing it or you will be. The electronic ignitions are not nearly as
> reliant on special training or fine attention to installation and
> maintenance details. You plug it in, and if it works, it works as
> designed.
>
> The fact that the HKS700E was designed to have a significant drop on
> one ignition is a red herring. That could have easily been designed
> in on purpose so that you would have a definite reassurance that both
> are working after the mag check.
>
> The mag is a complicated electromechanical device that is a
> masterpiece of engineering. But they are not reliable. Else, why do
> you carry two of them around, and why do you check both of them just
> before takeoff on every flight?
>
> Richard Girard wrote:
>> Peter, Upon what data does your statement, "the average mag is
>> horribly unreliable", come from? Properly setup and serviced, quite
>> the opposite is true, in my experience. Also your statement that the
>> dual ignition is required by jug size is questionable, too.
>> Last year while in class to get my LSA repairman maintenance ticket I
>> set the up two Slick mags to go into an A75. I set the internal
>> timing of the mags so that it was dead on for both, and the engine
>> timing the same. The instructor was on the verge of accusing me of
>> having OCD as I checked and rechecked until I was satisfied it was as
>> close as I could get it. When I was finally satisfied, we pulled the
>> plane out to the ramp and started it up. After it was up to operating
>> temp I did a mag check. It scared the wits out of me when I got NO
>> mag drop. Now the EIS installed on the plane only read in 10 RPM
>> increments, so there may have been some drop, but the instrument
>> didn't read it and I could neither hear it, nor feel it in the seat
>> of my pants. I thought sure I had installed the P leads improperly
>> and was ready to use the fuel valve to shut the engine down when the
>> instructor stepped in, checked all the connections and pronounced
>> them good. I did a second mag check, and still got no detectable
>> drop. I pulled the throttle back to idle, closed both mag switches
>> and the engine died just as it should. What gives, I always gotten
>> some drop on every plane I've ever been in. We pulled out the
>> continuity checker and went over the P leads again. Everything was as
>> it should be. Restarted the engine, established 1700 RPM and checked
>> again. NO drop. Shut down the left mag, let the engine run for a bit
>> and shut down the right mag. The engine died. Restarted, shut down
>> the right mag and let the engine run. Again, NO mag drop. Killed the
>> left mag, engine died. I'm sure the WTFO expression on my face begged
>> an explanation. The instructor, whose list of certs look like
>> alphabet soup gone mad, said it's simple really. It's a very low time
>> engine (his personal E-AB aircraft, by the way) and the students in
>> the class had set everything up as near perfect as was humanly
>> possible, hence no discernible mag drop. He recounted how many a long
>> faced pilot, discouraged by the $2000 quote for parts and labor from
>> another shop has become his loyal customer when a new set of points
>> and careful setting of internal mag timing and engine timing has
>> restored the mags to proper working order for less than a 1/4 of the
>> original estimate.
>> Now lets take the other end of the spectrum. I have and HKS700E
>> engine on my trike. It's got 40 hours on it. My OCD tendencies when
>> it comes to engine variables is as active as ever. It has dual CDI's
>> for each of its two diminutive 350cc cylinders. My first "mag" check
>> was a real upholstery clincher. I did the check at 3000 RPM and each
>> system showed a 500 RPM drop. Needless to say I was in a near panic
>> getting to the manuals before I called the importer. Under ignition
>> check it said, "engine shouldn't die"! It's taken a bit to get used
>> to, but that's the way the little engine is designed. It runs like
>> the proverbial sewing machine, otherwise.
>> My point is, engine design, system integration, and proper setup has
>> much more to do with ignition system performance than reliance on
>> OWT's about "horribly unreliable" claims.
>>
>> Rick
>
>
Message 22
| 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: Dual Ignition |
I agree that individual magnetos are not that reliable, but when
installed in a pair they do provide a reliable source of ignition.
I'm aware of at least two cases where an aircraft with electronic
ignition systems had a forced landing due to loss of ignition, or
improper functioning of the ignition system. So much for modern,
more reliable ignition systems.
Can anyone point me at an occurence where an aircraft with dual
magnetos had a power loss due to ignition system problems?
Kevin Horton
On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:20, Ernest Christley wrote:
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> Richard, the fact that the mags require "regular maintenance" and
> "proper setup" by someone stricken with OCD to work as you describe
> is the classical definition of unreliable. You can't 'rely' on the
> average hack with wet ink on his A&P license to set it correctly,
> and the fact that it needs to be done so often means the hack will
> be doing it or you will be. The electronic ignitions are not
> nearly as reliant on special training or fine attention to
> installation and maintenance details. You plug it in, and if it
> works, it works as designed.
>
> The fact that the HKS700E was designed to have a significant drop
> on one ignition is a red herring. That could have easily been
> designed in on purpose so that you would have a definite
> reassurance that both are working after the mag check.
>
> The mag is a complicated electromechanical device that is a
> masterpiece of engineering. But they are not reliable. Else, why
> do you carry two of them around, and why do you check both of them
> just before takeoff on every flight?
>
> Richard Girard wrote:
>> Peter, Upon what data does your statement, "the average mag is
>> horribly unreliable", come from? Properly setup and serviced,
>> quite the opposite is true, in my experience. Also your statement
>> that the dual ignition is required by jug size is questionable, too.
>> Last year while in class to get my LSA repairman maintenance
>> ticket I set the up two Slick mags to go into an A75. I set the
>> internal timing of the mags so that it was dead on for both, and
>> the engine timing the same. The instructor was on the verge of
>> accusing me of having OCD as I checked and rechecked until I was
>> satisfied it was as close as I could get it. When I was finally
>> satisfied, we pulled the plane out to the ramp and started it up.
>> After it was up to operating temp I did a mag check. It scared the
>> wits out of me when I got NO mag drop. Now the EIS installed on
>> the plane only read in 10 RPM increments, so there may have been
>> some drop, but the instrument didn't read it and I could neither
>> hear it, nor feel it in the seat of my pants. I thought sure I had
>> installed the P leads improperly and was ready to use the fuel
>> valve to shut the engine down when the instructor stepped in,
>> checked all the connections and pronounced them good. I did a
>> second mag check, and still got no detectable drop. I pulled the
>> throttle back to idle, closed both mag switches and the engine
>> died just as it should. What gives, I always gotten some drop on
>> every plane I've ever been in. We pulled out the continuity
>> checker and went over the P leads again. Everything was as it
>> should be. Restarted the engine, established 1700 RPM and checked
>> again. NO drop. Shut down the left mag, let the engine run for a
>> bit and shut down the right mag. The engine died. Restarted, shut
>> down the right mag and let the engine run. Again, NO mag drop.
>> Killed the left mag, engine died. I'm sure the WTFO expression on
>> my face begged an explanation. The instructor, whose list of certs
>> look like alphabet soup gone mad, said it's simple really. It's a
>> very low time engine (his personal E-AB aircraft, by the way) and
>> the students in the class had set everything up as near perfect as
>> was humanly possible, hence no discernible mag drop. He recounted
>> how many a long faced pilot, discouraged by the $2000 quote for
>> parts and labor from another shop has become his loyal customer
>> when a new set of points and careful setting of internal mag
>> timing and engine timing has restored the mags to proper working
>> order for less than a 1/4 of the original estimate.
>> Now lets take the other end of the spectrum. I have and HKS700E
>> engine on my trike. It's got 40 hours on it. My OCD tendencies
>> when it comes to engine variables is as active as ever. It has
>> dual CDI's for each of its two diminutive 350cc cylinders. My
>> first "mag" check was a real upholstery clincher. I did the check
>> at 3000 RPM and each system showed a 500 RPM drop. Needless to say
>> I was in a near panic getting to the manuals before I called the
>> importer. Under ignition check it said, "engine shouldn't die"!
>> It's taken a bit to get used to, but that's the way the little
>> engine is designed. It runs like the proverbial sewing machine,
>> otherwise.
>> My point is, engine design, system integration, and proper setup
>> has much more to do with ignition system performance than reliance
>> on OWT's about "horribly unreliable" claims.
>>
>> Rick
Message 23
| 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: P-mag wiring |
At 07:08 PM 9/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
><lamphere@vabb.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>Are you saying that WHILE YOU ARE IN FLIGHT the time it takes to switch
>off master and switch on Ebus (less than 2 seconds - even with shaking
>hands - the switches are next to each other), that the prop will stop
>before the Emag will work??? ... and by the way, I'm using a P-Mag also -
>I believe that will be happy without power as long as the engine is above
>low idle...
>
>Seems OK to me... what am I missing??
>
>Dave
If you have smoke in the cockpit that "smells electrical" then
there's nothing to tell you that the smoke is NOT coming from an
e-bus powered accessory. The prudent thing is to remove ALL practical
power from the ship's systems . . . practical meaning that
electrically dependent engines should NOT be deprived of energy
when everything else is.
Once order is restored in the cockpit, the pilot is certainly
free to begin "troubleshooting". Turning things on one at
a time, etc. I strongly discourage this activity while
airborne. Get the stuff out of your flight bag (you DO
have good stuff in your flight bag . . . no?) and get on
the ground before you start investigating the source of the
smoke.
It's not a matter of being able to change configuration by
repositioning switches. It's a matter of getting ship's wires
to max cold and getting on the ground without breaking a
sweat. Therefor the recommendation is that any device the engine
depends on for operation (hence banned from the list of
candidates for practical shutdown) should be powered from an
always hot battery bus.
Bob . . .
Message 24
| 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: Dual Electronic Ignition |
Thanks Bob, appreciate the feedback.
Lets assume I go for the Z13/8, but replace the generic Ford regulator
with an LR3 regulator. This gives me my Low Volts/OV warning and tells me
when to switch to main Alt out mode.
I assume this involves opening the DC Master and closing the E-Bus
Alternate Feed. In this mode, how would I install a low voltage warning
light? Would repositioning the AEC9005 module to the Endurance Bus do it?
Do you supply these, as I couldn't find it on yours or BandC's website?
If I was compelled to add a second small battery for an aux battery bus
for the second ignition, where would I put it?
The reason I am veering towards overkill is because I need to get
approval from my engineer to install dual electonic ignition before order
my engine and this will be based on the "perceived" reliability of my
electical system. If I do dual e-ignition, I will be the first in Ireland
to do so on an IO360 homebuild. In fact, just over the Irish sea in the
UK, dual electronic ignition is not permitted on homebuilts at all. All G
registered homebuilts must keep at least one mag................
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:01:37 -0600
At 02:22 PM 9/24/2007 +0000, you wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am an RV7 builder in Ireland and plan to install dual electronic
ignition. I was eyeing up a
> Split Bus config, but I think that is overkill for a VFR machine.
So I was looking to vary the
> Z14 design for (40A main, 20A aux alts and 16AH main, 7.2AH aux
batteries.
Also overkill.
> Then I saw the Z13/20 variant, All Electric Aeroplane with 20Amp
eBus. This looks perfect,
> albeit it has one battery. Is it feasible to add a small battery to
this design? If so where
> is the best to point to connect?
Why?
> What is the normal mode of Operation of this design and what is the
main alt out mode?
Take a look at Z-13/8 and tell us where it falls short of
accommodating your plan-b for any single failure of the
electrical system.
> Why is the eBus Alt Master a three position switch?
OFF/BAT ONLY/BAT+ALT just like the split rocker switch
in the majority of TC single engine aircraft.
> How would each Alt be tested during the pre-flight check listed?
Run each alternator by itself and watch the bus voltage and/or
loadmeter.
The Z-13/20 was not well thought out when I crafted it
and it's going to be removed from future publications.
If Z-13/8 doesn't cut it for you (and it should for 95%
or more of all SE OBAM aircraft flying) then Z-14 is the
next step.
In fact, I just pulled that drawing from the Appendix Z
posting on the website. I cannot imagine a situation where
Z-13/8 won't cut it for you.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
===========
===========
===========
Message 25
| 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: | Harbor Freight AA cells on sale . . . |
I was in the local HF store last weekend to pick up some
tools for the 'Connection's west campus and spotted some
AA alkaline cells on sale in a 24 pak for $5 . . . about
21 cents per cell.
I picked up a package and stuck a couple of the cells on
my super-duper battery runnerdowner to see how much energy
they contained and compared them with a pair of Duracells.
The results of the test are shown here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/HF_aa_vs_Duracell.jpg
At a 300 mA discharge rate, the Duracells dropped below
1.0 volts right at 5 hours (1.5 a.h.) The HF cells tossed
in the towel at about 4 hours and 20 minutes. At this fairly
aggressive discharge rate, the el-cheeso HF cells proved
to be an excellent value at $.21 each.
If there's a Harbor Freight outlet near you, you might
want to pick up a pak or two. They have excellent shelf
life.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
Message 26
| 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: TruTrak EFIS SG |
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Good Afternoon Echristley,
>
> I know absolutely nothing about all of those numbers you are mentioning, but
> a faster update rate buys you a LOT when you are using the instrument for
> flight control.
>
> How do your numbers compare to the Garmin 396 and the Garmin 496 numbers?
>
> While it is possible to use the flight instrument screen on a Garmin 196,
> 296 or 396 as a back up set of flight instruments, the 496 has a five times
> faster update rate than does the 396 and it is a LOT easier to fly.
>
> The faster the update rate, the faster you can notice a turn. Stop the turn
> and you will survive. Let the turn go for a few seconds and you will die.
>
>
Bob, if you update fast enough, all you notice is fluid motion. You
know your TV is really a series of still frames. At what point does the
moving picture go from being the flickering stop-motion that marked the
earliest years of the cinema, to the fluid life-like replica that is
modern cinema. It is right about 20 frames per second, 20Hz, for most
people. Some people can notice the flicker at that rate. Push it to
30Hz and no one can really tell.
So the advertisers say they can update the display at 60Hz, 60 times per
second, and this makes them better than the other guys that only update
at 20Hz. If you're bothered by the flickering in your TV that makes the
sports action jerky, I'd say the 60Hz is a selling point. Most of us
can get by with 20, though.
As a software engineer, the information does give some tantalizing clues
to the TruTrak's architecture vs other systems. An EFIS has to do 3
things. Collect some data, create a model of the world, and display a
picture. Designing the hardware for the system, you want to make $&(*
sure you have enough processing power to handle all three things. It
seems that TruTrak chose to write some tight code that runs in a loop.
Collect. Create. Display. Collect. Create. Display. This would make
for some clean, simple, linear code. I'd choose to have a safety factor
of 3 on the hardware, and 20Hz update rate is what's needed. So, the
60Hz result is about right.
Another way to set this up would be to maintain the model in memory.
You run one loop that constantly collects data an updates the model.
Another loop would create a picture from the model and display it. It
could possibly result in fewer hardware requirements, because you can
throttle back the picture drawing code to only what's necessary...20Hz.
Six of one. Half dozen of the other. I'm glad there's companies
approaching it from both directions, because in the end, we're the winners.
Message 27
| 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: P-mag wiring |
This is my very last comment on this matter.
Reading your last email kind of makes me sorry I ever went to the bother to
incorporate an EBus in my system. I made a mistake thinking it was to insure
you could continue the flight long enough to safely get on the ground.
According to this last response, that's not the reason.
I guess could have just stuck with switches for each item and eliminated the
extra components and complexity (like diode arrays, multiple bus "bars",
switches, etc.)
Too bad I didn't get involved with this discussion sooner.. like 6 months
ago...
Maybe it's not too late to redo the panel in a simpler version before
installation.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-mag wiring
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 07:08 PM 9/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>><lamphere@vabb.com>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>Are you saying that WHILE YOU ARE IN FLIGHT the time it takes to switch
>>off master and switch on Ebus (less than 2 seconds - even with shaking
>>hands - the switches are next to each other), that the prop will stop
>>before the Emag will work??? ... and by the way, I'm using a P-Mag also -
>>I believe that will be happy without power as long as the engine is above
>>low idle...
>>
>>Seems OK to me... what am I missing??
>>
>>Dave
>
> If you have smoke in the cockpit that "smells electrical" then
> there's nothing to tell you that the smoke is NOT coming from an
> e-bus powered accessory. The prudent thing is to remove ALL practical
> power from the ship's systems . . . practical meaning that
> electrically dependent engines should NOT be deprived of energy
> when everything else is.
>
> Once order is restored in the cockpit, the pilot is certainly
> free to begin "troubleshooting". Turning things on one at
> a time, etc. I strongly discourage this activity while
> airborne. Get the stuff out of your flight bag (you DO
> have good stuff in your flight bag . . . no?) and get on
> the ground before you start investigating the source of the
> smoke.
>
> It's not a matter of being able to change configuration by
> repositioning switches. It's a matter of getting ship's wires
> to max cold and getting on the ground without breaking a
> sweat. Therefor the recommendation is that any device the engine
> depends on for operation (hence banned from the list of
> candidates for practical shutdown) should be powered from an
> always hot battery bus.
>
> Bob . . .
Message 28
| 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: P-mag wiring |
At 11:38 PM 9/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
><lamphere@vabb.com>
>
>This is my very last comment on this matter.
>
>Reading your last email kind of makes me sorry I ever went to the bother
>to incorporate an EBus in my system. I made a mistake thinking it was to
>insure you could continue the flight long enough to safely get on the
>ground. According to this last response, that's not the reason.
>
>I guess could have just stuck with switches for each item and eliminated
>the extra components and complexity (like diode arrays, multiple bus
>"bars", switches, etc.)
>
>Too bad I didn't get involved with this discussion sooner.. like 6 months
>ago...
>
>Maybe it's not too late to redo the panel in a simpler version before
>installation.
>
>Dave
I'm sorry that you're disappointed but I'm mystified as
to why. The architectures offered in the Z-figures and
the rationale for what equipment items should drive from
which bus seems pretty straight-forward. You didn't not
mention which Z-figure you were incorporating. Z-13/8?
If it makes you feel better, put the emags on what ever
bus you like . . . it's your airplane. But I'd like to
understand how we failed to help you understand the functionality
of all the features within the z-figures. Have you
read chapter 17?
The e-bus was crafted to offer a minimum power consumption
dual power path mode for endurance . . . it has NOTHING to
do with getting safely on the ground. Getting safely on the
ground is the responsibility of the pilot knowing exactly what the
limits are for his/her options. Limits are determined by
hardware selection, architecture selection and most important,
preventative maintenance of the battery so that you can
confidently fly right up to those limits.
Smoke in the cockpit is rare and unique event that supercedes
wear-out failures in importance. The e-bus minimizes loads
for continued flight to airport of intended destination.
The procedure for dealing with smoke makes no pretenses
about continued flight. It's time to come down NOW and
with a minimum of electrical hardware powered up.
Drop the e-bus if you like. Drop the second alternator
if you find that too complex. But run your engine goodies
of the battery bus no matter which architecture you choose.
Bob . . .
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! --
|