Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:50 AM - Re: Re: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers (corrected) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 06:04 AM - Re: Re: Responsible Consumerism in a Free Market ()
3. 06:56 AM - Re: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers (The Kuffels)
4. 08:07 AM - Re: Poor man's high torque servo circuit (Charlie England)
5. 08:50 AM - Re: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers (H. M. Haught Jr.)
6. 09:14 AM - Re: FAA policy on circuit breakers (Glen Matejcek)
7. 09:47 AM - Re: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 10:00 AM - Ground plane on Carbon part 2 (Dan Ballin)
9. 11:36 AM - Re: Re: FAA policy on circuit breakers (John W. Cox)
10. 12:48 PM - Re: Ground plane on Carbon part 2 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 02:03 PM - Re: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers (H. M. Haught Jr.)
12. 02:47 PM - Re: TruTrak EFIS SG (Ed)
13. 04:16 PM - Retractable Landing Light (Steve Thomas)
14. 04:41 PM - Combined Switch/Circuit Breakers (The Kuffels)
15. 04:42 PM - Re: Re: FAA policy on circuit breakers (Kevin Horton)
16. 05:06 PM - Re: Retractable Landing Light (Richard Riley)
17. 05:09 PM - Mode S on the ground? (Richard Riley)
18. 06:28 PM - Re: Combined Switch/Circuit Breakers (H. M. Haught Jr.)
19. 08:13 PM - Re: Re: FAA policy on circuit breakers (Kelly McMullen)
20. 09:04 PM - Re: Re: Question about an Aux Alternator (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: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers (corrected) |
Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
I must admit to not having read this entire thread thoroughly, but my take
on the original reference is that, rather than discussing circuit breaker
details and design subtleties, the FAA was telling their Designated Pilot
Examiners to be careful how they disable any of the new fangled glass cockpit
devices.
If it has an honest to goodness switch, disabling it might be considered
fair game.
If an examiner disables something by operating a circuit breaker, it could
lead to all sorts of litigious matters in the event of an incident.
Back when I was serving as a DPE (gliders only, but I did attend the DPE
meetings and listen to all of the discussions and guidance) it was recommended,
even insisted by some FAA types, that we NEVER pull a circuit breaker to
disable anything.
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 9/28/2007 10:54:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob@cox.net writes:
Does this mean that IF you use a breaker for any purpose,
it's first function is for protection and switching is
secondary? Therefore, the antithesis would suggest that
if one uses a breaker primarily for it's capabilities
as a switch and NO intent for protection is claimed,
then the designer is to be shot at dawn?
Bob . . .
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: Responsible Consumerism in a Free Market |
As suggested throughout there are many ways to grow a free market
society. China first needs to deal with its social factors first. Case
and point Burma. Whether it's a new health network or books for babies
they have a lot to do. Don't use the US as a perfect standard as we have
so many of our own issues. Remember, the US was also an experiment and
we are still dealing with the fact.
If you visit China on business as I have it doesn't take long to realize
they have the drive and capitalist mentality to succeed economically.
There are so many issues they cannot possibly cover them all overnight
as their economy grows 7-10% a year.
We must realize that China is lesson in economics and statistics. In the
last five years US imports from China have grown by 200 billion dollars.
That is a hell of a lot of circuit breakers. I'd have to look but I'll
bet the last time the US economy grew that fast as a percentage was
probably WW2. Don't think for one minute we didn't have quality issues
then either. We still do, Ford repeats at least one quality/economic
failure every year.
At a time when growth is forcing quality litigation in China, their
quality is improving in many areas. Soon they will be shipping cars to
the US. Much of the tooling and machining now used in China is purchased
from Germany - yes the inventors of quality.
Statistically you could put numbers too it. 1 in 100,000 widgets failed
in 2000 while 7 in 400,000 now fail in 2007. There is no way around the
recent quality incidents in China as their exposure has become so great.
Same deal with flying. If you increase your flying time 500 hours a
year, you are much more likely to have an accident. China is suffering
growing pains. Yes, ok - I'll admin their ethos are not up to our
standards, but we don't live there we just buy their stuff - you don't
have too. Buy your stuff from Germany and pay twice as much. I'm not
convinced Americans really want quality over price in every case. Don't
forget as a child you probably licked on the window sill covered with
lead paint as you struggled to walk.
Through it all we have supported China with our purchases. Total exports
now exceed 400 million while the US sends a measly 60 million to China.
A chunk of that 60 is Buicks. Buick sold more units in China last year
than here in the old US. And no, it's not all about China protectionism;
we've given up our drive to be the creators of the world, so its time to
pass the ball. Why do you suppose Home Depot's true home office is in
Beijing?
A greater danger to our livelihood is the fact that China is holding
about 400 billion in US bonds which it can leverage as needed. Worse,
this money is making its way around the world to buy much needed
materials and energy from Russia et al. When that money is dumped back
on the US economy, poof there goes inflation.
We can all avoid some of this havoc buy spreading out your buying habits
as well as you spread out your 401k investments. Buy your next wrench
from France or Germany (they don't really need it either) or someplace
other than China.
Did you know that just last year China passed France in total GNP. Now
how could that be? Little old France who makes 260 kinds of cheese and
97 brands of wine would give up its 4 place position in the economic
world to China over a few widgets.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: re: Responsible Consumerism in a Free
Market
--> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>> When and if the Great Transition happens for the
>> Chinese people, it could be very EXPENSIVE in both
>> human capital and facilities. What we would hope
>> for is that their remaining ability to produce and
>> sell in a free market makes them an attractive
>> source of goods and services for all of us. The
>> more stuff we can buy from them then, the faster they
>> will recover. Buying lots of useful stuff is the
>> finest form of foreign aid we could offer.
>
>Good points, Bob. I like to think that the "Great Transition" will be
>as
>bloodless as the Soviet Union's. The Chinese system is currently a
"kinda
>sort of" representative government in that they do vote for their local
>representative to the communist party.
Those are good seeds. There are no doubt others.
>If you enjoy "Good Value", take a riverboat cruise up the Yangtze river
>to
>and through the Three Gorges Dam while the exchange rate is still
>favorable. Highly recommended.
I'll take that under advisement. Thank you. I know my
wife would love to do it too.
I've had some direct email flack about departing
from subjects germane to our mission. I had to
remind them that my original posting concerned the
results of an inquiry into return on investment for
some batteries offered by a local store. But even
my response to the political retort was do depoliticize
the discussion by focusing on fundamentals of
economics and human behavior.
I think opportunities offered to us by Harbor
Freight and others go directly to the goal of maximizing
return on our investment of $time$ in crafting an
airplane. This is especially true when many of the
tools, while perhaps not adequate for the 40-hr/wk
professional would do nicely for the construction of
one airplane. I bought one of their air-nailers to
re-nailed my sub-floors and built one fence.
If I never use it again, it's paid for itself!
Like the Japanese suppliers of 50 years ago, the
folks at Harbor Freight are a fledgling activity
with great potential. The thing we can do best for
each other and for Harbor Freight is accurately
quantify value received for any of their products
we might find useful. It can only benefit us both.
Bob . . .
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: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers |
The FAA sez:
"A circuit breaker is a device designed to open and close a
circuit by non-automatic means and to open the circuit
automatically at a predetermined overload of current, without
injury to itself when properly applied within its rating. Thus,
circuit breakers used for operational functions are not
acceptable because they are not performing their intended
function, which is protection against overloads."
This is a typical case of bureaucratic blindness. It ignores the
existence of breakers *designed* to also be used as switches.
The hydraulic/magnetic series from Airpax and Carling cost $15 -
$20 each. I claim their trip point is more stable than the
ambient temperature sensitive thermal types we typically use.
And the lower parts count of combining the switch and breaker
function simplifies wiring which almost by definition increases
reliability.
This ability to use technologies more modern than W.W.II is yet
another advantage of OBAM aircraft.
Tom Kuffel
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: Poor man's high torque servo circuit |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 12:18 PM 9/28/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> I want to use a wiper motor as a high torque servo on a machine that
>> feeds sheet sheet goods through itself.
>>
>> Motor output shaft is at built-in "Park" position.
>>
>> Sheet edge is placed in position against limit Switch S1(NO) that
>> closes to supply power to motor.
>>
>> S1 is attached to an arm, such that it moves out of the material line
>> of travel (and opens in the process) when the motor output shaft moves
>> the arm.
>>
>> Also attached to the arm is S2 (NC), which contacts the sheet and
>> opens when the arm has moved to a target position. S2 interrupts power
>> to the motor thus holding the output shaft and arm at the target
>> position.
>>
>> When the sheet has passed S2, and it closes, I want the motor to start
>> and return to the built in "park position".
>
> I take it some motivation other than your motor removed the sheet?
>
>
>> I know this is probably child's play for some of you. I am
>> electronically challenged and, aside from being told to "Get a life!",
>> I would like the group's advice.
>
> I'm not sure I have a correct image of your task. Windshield
> motors are unidirectional . . . I.e. the act of powering it
> OFF is really a signal to continue rotation in original direction
> until the park position is reached. I presume you understand this.
>
> Do you have the motor and does it have a built-in control
> card for intermittent ops timing and hi/lo speed control?
>
> If it's an older unit with no electronics, then wiring per
> my present vision is pretty simple. If it has electronics,
> you'll have to do some experimenting with reference to the
> target vehicle's wiring diagrams to make it sing, dance and
> do dishes.
>
> It's been a LONG time since I used one of these motors to
> a task and it had no electronics. However, I dug into my
> Safarri wipers to fix an intermittent that was subject of
> a recall. Found a poorly soldered joint which I fixed and
> the motor ran another 150,000 miles. I recall the car's
> wiring diagrams being pretty cryptic . . . fortunately
> the problem was visibly obvious and I didn't need to
> understand it.
>
> Bob . . .
> I recently read an article about a 'one-off' plane with retract gear
that had electric gear with a 1-direction motor. The gear train
mechanism was designed to run full circle. IIRC, there were stop-points
at 0 & 180 degrees. The cam mechanism basically extended the scissors of
the gear while running from 0 to 180 degrees,then stopped. When the
motor started again, the cam continued from 180 to 0, closing the
scissors. Obviously, the cam actuator was pinned to the scissors instead
of just pushing.
If you just want 2 positions, it should be pretty easy to do. Just have
a circuit interrupter at the extended position, and over-ride the
interrupter with a momentary switch to start the return. Mechanical
design sounds like a bigger pain than doing it with a reversible motor,
though.
Charlie
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: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers |
Which part numbers do you recommend for aircraft 12 VDC use?
M. Haught
The Kuffels wrote:
> <kuffel@cyberport.net>
>
> The FAA sez:
>
> "A circuit breaker is a device designed to open and close a circuit by
> non-automatic means and to open the circuit automatically at a
> predetermined overload of current, without injury to itself when
> properly applied within its rating. Thus, circuit breakers used for
> operational functions are not acceptable because they are not
> performing their intended function, which is protection against
> overloads."
>
> This is a typical case of bureaucratic blindness. It ignores the
> existence of breakers *designed* to also be used as switches. The
> hydraulic/magnetic series from Airpax and Carling cost $15 - $20
> each. I claim their trip point is more stable than the ambient
> temperature sensitive thermal types we typically use. And the lower
> parts count of combining the switch and breaker function simplifies
> wiring which almost by definition increases reliability.
>
> This ability to use technologies more modern than W.W.II is yet
> another advantage of OBAM aircraft.
>
> Tom Kuffel
>
>
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: FAA policy on circuit breakers |
Hi All-
> Interesting take. I missed that. I'm trying to put the
> gray-matter around:
>
> "Thus, circuit breakers used for operational functions are
> not acceptable because they are not performing their
> intended function, which is protection against overloads."
>
> Does this mean that IF you use a breaker for any purpose,
> it's first function is for protection and switching is
> secondary? Therefore, the antithesis would suggest that
> if one uses a breaker primarily for it's capabilities
> as a switch and NO intent for protection is claimed,
> then the designer is to be shot at dawn?
Why, yes- of course!
My take on the FedWords is that CB's are not to be used as switches as a matter
of course. However, there have been times when an electrical problem has caused
smoke / fire without drawing adequate current to trip a CB. For example,
a low power component inside a high powered box could fail dramatically, causing
fire / smoke without tripping the protection for the box. (think Swissair)
SOP for these situations is to make ones way through the electrical system,
pulling breakers until the faulty circuit is isolated and depowered. Hence, the
breaker is being used for an emergency, as opposed to operational, function.
regardz-
Glen Matejcek
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: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers |
At 10:49 AM 9/29/2007 -0500, you wrote:
><handainc@madisoncounty.net>
>
>Which part numbers do you recommend for aircraft 12 VDC use?
ANY breaker you find in the catalogs will function
as expected for the purpose of keeping your airplane
from catching fire. It's a matter of how much $time$
and panel space you are willing to invest in procuring,
installing, wiring and carrying them around for the
lifetime of the airplane.
The breakers of choice for most builders is the same
device used in the majority of type certified aircraft.
Exemplar devices look like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/circuitbreakers.jpg
and are offered by
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?7X358218#cb25
http://aircraftspruce.com/menus/el/circuitbreakers.html
http://steinair.com/circuitbreakers.htm
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_detail.php/pid=1826~subid=629/index.html
The greatest return on investment is to not use fuses
in lieu of breakers:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/fuseblks.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/s889.jpg
Bob . . .
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: | Ground plane on Carbon part 2 |
Thanks for all the advice on the ground plane for a carbon aircraft.
I decided to use copper foil tape in radials on the inside. The tape
has adhesive, but I covered it with a layer of fiberglass. I put an
oval of copper at the center using the conductive adhesive to connect
the radials to the oval. My plan was to solder them together, but am
worried about the heat and damaging the carbon. I plan to use nut
plates through the copper to mount the antenna, but how can I get good
conductivity to the antenna base. I was thinking about using a
separate ground screw as per one of Bob's diagrams, but the antenna
has a BNC connector and there really isn't any way to connect a ground
that I can think of.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
Dan Ballin
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: FAA policy on circuit breakers |
Glen - thanks for clear language to help in "To use or not use" CBs. In
our air transport aircraft, a flight crewmember can "Open" closed
circuit but only on rare occasion close a CB which is provided for its
primary purpose - to protect the wire. No one should assume the CB is
installed to protect the end component(s).
Trained maintenance personnel operating on the ground with the flight
formally terminated may then troubleshoot and close an errant CB.
The CBs are designed and constructed to aid in Operator assisted
"opening". They are assumed to always be in the ready to serve their
primary purpose "to protect the wire run" when Closed. The Fed requires
that our technical department brief the pilots not to close them except
in isolated and pre-approved in-flight conditions.
We are briefed that they are only used as switches and moved between
"Off (open) / ON (closed)" while on the ground, in maintenance mode and
with other personnel present.
To second a comment that was projected earlier, I do not consider
installation of CBs on the primary flight instrument panel to be a
prudent use of valuable real estate. Nor are they particularly
aesthetically pleasing to look at for the life of the panel. Leaves a
conundrum as to where to place them, how easy to read/see which one pops
Open and how easy to open them when necessary as a procedural switch
during that rare occurrence.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Glen
Matejcek
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA policy on circuit breakers
<aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi All-
> Interesting take. I missed that. I'm trying to put the
> gray-matter around:
>
> "Thus, circuit breakers used for operational functions are
> not acceptable because they are not performing their
> intended function, which is protection against overloads."
>
> Does this mean that IF you use a breaker for any purpose,
> it's first function is for protection and switching is
> secondary? Therefore, the antithesis would suggest that
> if one uses a breaker primarily for it's capabilities
> as a switch and NO intent for protection is claimed,
> then the designer is to be shot at dawn?
Why, yes- of course!
My take on the FedWords is that CB's are not to be used as switches as a
matter of course. However, there have been times when an electrical
problem has caused smoke / fire without drawing adequate current to trip
a CB. For example, a low power component inside a high powered box
could fail dramatically, causing fire / smoke without tripping the
protection for the box. (think Swissair) SOP for these situations is
to make ones way through the electrical system, pulling breakers until
the faulty circuit is isolated and depowered. Hence, the breaker is
being used for an emergency, as opposed to operational, function.
regardz-
Glen Matejcek
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground plane on Carbon part 2 |
At 07:56 AM 9/29/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Thanks for all the advice on the ground plane for a carbon aircraft.
>I decided to use copper foil tape in radials on the inside. The tape
>has adhesive, but I covered it with a layer of fiberglass. I put an
>oval of copper at the center using the conductive adhesive to connect
>the radials to the oval. My plan was to solder them together, but am
>worried about the heat and damaging the carbon.
Use 63/37 solder and please do solder them.
> I plan to use nut
>plates through the copper to mount the antenna, but how can I get good
>conductivity to the antenna base. I was thinking about using a
>separate ground screw as per one of Bob's diagrams, but the antenna
>has a BNC connector and there really isn't any way to connect a ground
>that I can think of.
>
>Any thoughts?
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif
the mounting screws get you the ground. You'll end up
with 3 or 4 total. Obviously, with the composite aircraft
you won't have to clean the interior surfaces market with
(*) but certainly under the bolt heads and nuts. Recommend
you do not use nutplates. The hardware shown provides the
minimum-parts, short-path connection between antenna based
and "doubler" which in this case is your radial ground-plate.
Bob . . .
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: FAA Policy on Circuit Breakers |
I guess I wasn't clear, as I was referring to the breakers that are also
designed as switches, re: the Airpax and Carling units. I googled a
site that has them, and was totally boggled by the variety and number of
possibilities. Makes sense to me to cut down on parts count, and every
where I need a switch and a circuit break, I would considered using one
of those units. However, I can visualized HOURS poring through that
site trying to find a suitable 12 volt unit. I'm very familiar with
aircraft circuit breakers and have several surplus breakers in my stock
of parts for replacement of units in my certified Pacer. Just thought
it was interesting to be able to cut down on complexity, connections and
number of parts by using the dual purpose breakers / switches.
I'm building a Bearhawk and am primarily interested in reliability and
simplicity (I believe both of those characteristics go hand in had from
my personal experience with airplane electrical systems!).
However, Bob, I certainly appreciate you taking the time and making the
effort to educate a "newby". By the way - I attended one of your
seminars nearly 20 years ago now, and that is where I obtained my basic
education on aircraft wiring. I was glad to find this site as I am
starting to plan my electrical system for my Bearhawk.
M. Haught
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 10:49 AM 9/29/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> <handainc@madisoncounty.net>
>>
>> Which part numbers do you recommend for aircraft 12 VDC use?
>
> ANY breaker you find in the catalogs will function
> as expected for the purpose of keeping your airplane
> from catching fire. It's a matter of how much $time$
> and panel space you are willing to invest in procuring,
> installing, wiring and carrying them around for the
> lifetime of the airplane.
>
> The breakers of choice for most builders is the same
> device used in the majority of type certified aircraft.
> Exemplar devices look like this:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/circuitbreakers.jpg
>
> and are offered by
>
> http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?7X358218#cb25
>
> http://aircraftspruce.com/menus/el/circuitbreakers.html
>
> http://steinair.com/circuitbreakers.htm
>
> http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_detail.php/pid=1826~subid=629/index.html
>
>
> The greatest return on investment is to not use fuses
> in lieu of breakers:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/fuseblks.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/s889.jpg
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: TruTrak EFIS SG |
A nice combo package, yes, but if the EFIS has a problem, a completely
separate autopilot will keep you upright while you figure out what to do
next.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
longg@pjm.com wrote:
>
>Does anyone know if the new EFIS will be integrated with any of their
>autopilot options? It would make a nice combo package.
>
>
>
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: | Retractable Landing Light |
Some time ago there was some discussion on this topic. I don't
remember, but someone (maybe Bob?) was going to look into a design
for a retractable landing light. Anything new to report on this?
I found one really slick one. See: http://tinyurl.com/3bapfy but it
is designed for an Airbus 320.
Steve
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: | Combined Switch/Circuit Breakers |
<< Which part numbers do you recommend for aircraft 12 VDC use? >>
I used AIRPAX R11-51-nn.nA-G06EV-S Hydraulic/Magnetic Circuit
Breaker/Switches available from Onlinecomponents.com for $11.05.
These are gray body/white flat rocker switches with black
ON-Off marking. nn.n is the amperage rating with 2/5/10/15 amps
available in this style.
Mouser stocks a similar unit from Carling with a black body for
$18.53, see part series MA1-B-34-xxx-1-A12-B-C where xxx is the
amperage code, available ratings 5/7.5/10/15/20/25 amps.
Other similar styles are available including angled rockers and
international | - O markings.
Tom Kuffel
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: FAA policy on circuit breakers |
On 29 Sep 2007, at 14:34, John W. Cox wrote:
> To second a comment that was projected earlier, I do not consider
> installation of CBs on the primary flight instrument panel to be a
> prudent use of valuable real estate. Nor are they particularly
> aesthetically pleasing to look at for the life of the panel. Leaves a
> conundrum as to where to place them, how easy to read/see which one
> pops
> Open and how easy to open them when necessary as a procedural switch
> during that rare occurrence.
I agree that CBs should be located so that they can be confirmed as
IN during pre-flight checks. But once you are in flight, I am not
convinced that we need easy view or access. Typically the first sign
of a problem is when you notice that some piece of equipment is no
longer functioning. At that point, does it really matter whether the
failure is caused by a popped CB, a wire that has come off a
terminal, or a failure of the item itself? Why do you need to be
able to easily see the CB?
If a piece of equipment has a potential failure mode that would
require removing its power supply, it should probably be wired
through a switch, or you should plan on killing power to the bus that
powers it (only acceptable if you can accept the loss of all other
items on that bus). You shouldn't plan on pulling the CB, as they
can sometimes be very difficult to grab on to.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Retractable Landing Light |
At 04:14 PM 9/29/2007, you wrote:
>Some time ago there was some discussion on this topic. I don't
>remember, but someone (maybe Bob?) was going to look into a design
>for a retractable landing light. Anything new to report on this?
>
>I found one really slick
>one. See: <http://tinyurl.com/3bapfy>http://tinyurl.com/3bapfy but
>it is designed for an Airbus 320.
A retract landing light is standard for Long EZ, Vari Eze and Cozy.
I don't know if anyone makes the parts anymore, they were Ken Brock
standard items.
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: | Mode S on the ground? |
I have a situation where it would be of great help to be able to see
"radar" information while I'm on the ground, parked in a truck about
3 miles away from an airport in the Mojave desert.
I have a Garmin 480 and a mode S transponder (GTX33) sitting on a
shelf. Is it likely that I'd be able to get the TIS data while I'm
on the ground?
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Combined Switch/Circuit Breakers |
Thanks, Tom -
That saved me hours of looking through specs!
M. Haught
The Kuffels wrote:
> <kuffel@cyberport.net>
>
> << Which part numbers do you recommend for aircraft 12 VDC use? >>
>
> I used AIRPAX R11-51-nn.nA-G06EV-S Hydraulic/Magnetic Circuit
> Breaker/Switches available from Onlinecomponents.com for $11.05.
> These are gray body/white flat rocker switches with black ON-Off
> marking. nn.n is the amperage rating with 2/5/10/15 amps available in
> this style.
>
> Mouser stocks a similar unit from Carling with a black body for
> $18.53, see part series MA1-B-34-xxx-1-A12-B-C where xxx is the
> amperage code, available ratings 5/7.5/10/15/20/25 amps.
>
> Other similar styles are available including angled rockers and
> international | - O markings.
>
> Tom Kuffel
>
>
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: FAA policy on circuit breakers |
Hi John,
Remember that a number of type certificated aircraft are equiped with
circuit breakers such as the P&B W31 series that are intended to be
routinely used for switching devices on and off, as well as providing
circuit protection. Of course that is from the CAA days, when the feds
actually had some folks that knew something. Lets see, my TC aircraft
has boost pump, pitot heat, rotating beacon, nav lights and landing
lights on such breakers on its type certificate, and a couple more added
later for STC approved equipment.The only failure mode I have seen is
the internal springs get weak with age and they can nuisance trip, at
which point they are due for replacement.
Kelly
John W. Cox wrote:
>
> Glen - thanks for clear language to help in "To use or not use" CBs. In
> our air transport aircraft, a flight crewmember can "Open" closed
> circuit but only on rare occasion close a CB which is provided for its
> primary purpose - to protect the wire. No one should assume the CB is
> installed to protect the end component(s).
>
> Trained maintenance personnel operating on the ground with the flight
> formally terminated may then troubleshoot and close an errant CB.
>
> The CBs are designed and constructed to aid in Operator assisted
> "opening". They are assumed to always be in the ready to serve their
> primary purpose "to protect the wire run" when Closed. The Fed requires
> that our technical department brief the pilots not to close them except
> in isolated and pre-approved in-flight conditions.
>
> We are briefed that they are only used as switches and moved between
> "Off (open) / ON (closed)" while on the ground, in maintenance mode and
> with other personnel present.
>
> To second a comment that was projected earlier, I do not consider
> installation of CBs on the primary flight instrument panel to be a
> prudent use of valuable real estate. Nor are they particularly
> aesthetically pleasing to look at for the life of the panel. Leaves a
> conundrum as to where to place them, how easy to read/see which one pops
> Open and how easy to open them when necessary as a procedural switch
> during that rare occurrence.
>
> John Cox
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Glen
> Matejcek
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:13 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA policy on circuit breakers
>
> -
>
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: Question about an Aux Alternator |
At 08:35 AM 9/27/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I do indeed have the rectifier regulator...at least what I have looks like
>the one in the picture Bob linked. There is no number on it.
>
>I don't physically have the LR-3. I was referring to it in regards to the
>Z-13.
Okay, if you use a generic, externally regulated alternator
the you need the equivalent of the LR-3 in the three components
I illustrated.
>
>
>Regarding the hall effect sensor comment. I'm running a Dynon
>FlightDEK-D180 as my main instrument. It has the ability to read current
>and voltage. In its manual, it states that for current, I have the option
>to use the GRT CS-01 hall effects sensor. So running both B leads through
>this sensor will do what I'm looking to do and that is to read the current
>of both alternators combined. The reason for this is that I don't want to
>have a separate ammeter for the aux alternator. I want it all to go
>through the Dynon. I suppose I could have some sort of selector switch set
>up to determine which alternator the Dynon is displaying as well right?
>
>I don't think I ever got an answer on this one: Is it not a good idea to
>run both alternators to a single shunt?
To do so departs from the architecture described in Z-13.
But you could use a single hall effect sensor for both
alternator feeds. The hall effect measures current in each
wire independently and does not disturb the recommended
architecture.
>Bob has commented that the SD-8 has known qualities and suggested that a
>case can be made for not using an ammeter for it. I personally want the
>ability to look at the output in flight. If a light comes on I'd like to
>have a warm fuzzy that the SD-8 is indeed putting out.
If the SD-8 is working, the lv warn light goes out.
>OK, to sum it up, this is what I understand:
>
>1-Yes, the LR-3 can be replaced in the Z-13 diagram by the Plane Power
>alternator because its built in OV protection circuit is adequate.
Not quite. The LR-3 is designed for use in conjunction
with an externally regulated alternator, NOT a PlanePower
product which has its own, built in regulation and ov
protection.
>2-Bob says that the Plane Power alternator warning light output is not
>recommended and that a separate warning system per Bob's book should be used.
That's the recommendation.
>3-Normal operation would be to run both alternators simultaneously because
>the rectifier regulator for the aux is set for 1 volt lower and will relax
>during normal operation.
No, Figure Z-13 is a two layer system set up to back up the
main alternator driving the main bus with an SD-8 alternator
driving an e-bus.
>Do I understand this correctly?
The autoswitch feature I described is UNIQUE to Z-12 with
an SD-20 alternator and SB-1 regulator driving the main
bus and set up like the STC used to put this system on
a host of TC aircraft.
With Z-13, you leave the SD-8 off until needed when
it is determined that the main alternator is off line
(lv light on). You drop to e-bus loads, open battery
contactor, turn SD-8 on and continue to airport of
intended destination. If the SD-8 is not overloaded,
the lv warning light will go back out.
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! --
|