Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:46 AM - Re: Re: music inputs (Ernest Christley)
2. 05:51 AM - 430W installation (Gary Casey)
3. 06:05 AM - Re: Fusible Link - is length of wire a concern? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:12 AM - Re: [Probable SPAM] Z-19 E Bus feeder questions - Fuse selection? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:18 AM - Re: Fusible Link - is length of wire a concern? (mikef)
6. 07:25 AM - Re: Z-19 E Bus feeder questions - Fuse selection? (mikef)
7. 10:23 AM - Re: Re: Jabiru Alternator Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 10:36 AM - Re: Jabiru alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 10:53 AM - Visit to Emagair (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 10:53 AM - Re: [Probable SPAM] Z-19 E Bus feeder questions - Fuse selection? ()
11. 12:33 PM - Switch selection . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 12:49 PM - Re: Visit to Emagair (Matt Prather)
13. 01:05 PM - Re: Z-19 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 01:06 PM - Re: [Probable SPAM] Z-19 E Bus feeder questions (Glaeser, Dennis A)
15. 01:08 PM - Re: Visit to Emagair (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 01:39 PM - Re: Visit to Emagair (Bret Smith)
17. 01:59 PM - Re: Visit to Emagair (Matt Prather)
18. 02:38 PM - Re: Visit to Emagair (n801bh@netzero.com)
19. 05:49 PM - Z-19 (Gaye and Vaughn)
20. 06:18 PM - Re: Z-19 E Bus feeder questions - Fuse selection? (Allen Fulmer)
21. 06:53 PM - Figure Z-8 (Jon Hussey)
22. 08:44 PM - Re: 14V verus 28V (Jeff Page)
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: music inputs |
Emrath wrote:
>
> Ralph,
> Thanks, but can you tell me what page of the manual. I've a number of
> replies that say the tip is the Right channel. I guess is really doesn't
> matter too much when all is said and done.
>
>
If you get it backwards, it will feel like you're standing with your
back to the band. What will THAT do to your situational awareness?
8*)
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: | 430W installation |
I have recently upgraded my 430A to a 430W (WAAS capable) in my
Lancair ES. I received the 430 back along with a new slightly larger
antenna. The antenna cable requires a new connector (threaded vs the
old BNC) and the "book" from Garmin recommends a length between 13
and 35 feet to get the recommend 3 to 7 db loss. Whether they
"require" at least a 3 db loss is not 100% clear in the manual.
Anyway, I installed the antenna under the glare shield in the same
place as the previous antenna, adjacent to the Pinpoint(now Chelton)
GPS antenna. Originally the Chelton used a Crossbow GPS receiver
that was a little marginal and it dropped out now and then, while the
Garmin was "bullet-proof" and often received an adequate signal when
inside the steel hangar (door open). The Pinpoint GPS has been much
better and hasn't dropped once since I installed it. It has a larger
antenna than the previous postage-stamp version, but didn't seem to
interfer with the Garmin reception. Now things are different and the
Garmin is having trouble. First thing I did was change my 2-foot
antenna RG400 to a 13-foot RG400, but there was no detectable
change. I raised the antenna as high as possible while staying under
the glare shield. Then I mounted it to a small aluminum ground plane
and laid it on top of the radio stack, simulating a mounting on top
of the glare shield. The height of the signal bars seems to be
independent of all those changes, including the cable length. It
does receive lots of satellites, typically 9 usable signals at any
given time, so what could possibly go wrong? Every once in a while
the GPS will drop out completely - not just giving and integrity
warning, but a complete loss. When I look at the signal strength
page I will see perhaps one hollow bar and nothing else. How could
it lose all the satellites at once? After maybe 30 seconds to 3
minutes it comes back on line and works well again, including the
vertical navigation functions. I can't come up with a common event
that triggers this - it's not a com transmission, but it seems to
happen after 10 minutes or so of flying and I haven't yet had it
happen twice in one flight, although all my flights have been short
since the installation. So far it has never happened on the ground.
It might be happening more often when pointed east, but I'm not
convinced that is a factor. The tech at Lancair said "the WAAS
signal is more sensitive because it uses satellites closer to the
horizon." I didn't think that was the case as I thought all the
satellites were continuously moving.
Has anyone had a similar experience? Any suggestions?
Gary Casey
Lancair ES
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: Fusible Link - is length of wire a concern? |
At 12:12 PM 10/10/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>And another question :)
>
>Question: is there a suggested maximum wire length used when incorporating
>fusible links in a system? (or threshold for switching to something else?)
>
>Background: I am building a Z-19 system for my pusher aircraft. The
>important electrical components are all in the rear of the aircraft near
>the engine. This includes the Main Power bus and Ammeter shunt. The Master
>switch and Ammeter are located up front on the panel, being separated by
>about 10' of wire length in both cases.
Fuses, breakers, fusible links are all "weak links in a chain"
intended to provide orderly, low maintenance, predictable
failure of an "overloaded chain" that minimizes damage to the system.
It matters not how long that chain is.
>I am wondering if that is too far to run the fusible link wire from the
>Main power bus to the Master switch. Same concern for the shunt to ammeter
>fusible links.
You lost me. "Fusible link wire?" If an when fusible
links are practical, the fusible link wire is but a
few inches long and enclosed in a material that minimizes
risks to adjacent wires if that particular piece of wire
burns. I'm also wondering about a protected wire that runs
from "main power bus to the master switch", are you speaking
of the fat wire that runs from the battery contactor to the
main bus fuse block or breakers? This wire doesn't get
protection, fusible link or otherwise. Fusible links are
not recommended in any locations other than those depicted
in the Z-figures and then only for relatively small wires.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
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: | Z-19 E Bus feeder questions |
- Fuse selection?
At 02:15 PM 10/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Mike,
> I'll wait for the Bob's definitive answer but this makes no
>sense. That would be like adding a 100 am panel to your home and feeding
>it off a 20 amp breaker in your main panel.
>
> The lead from the main power bus to the endurance bus should be
>a direct feed from the same terminal as the main feed. Between them is a
>diode to prevent backflow if the e-bus alternate is used.
>
> Also, I have an issue with the orphaned switch for fuel pump #2.
>Why not integrate it with the engine primary and secondary switching?
>Note that if fuel pump #1 makes trouble, this diagram provides no way to
>isolate it, but rather one method to switch the bus that feeds it. With
>switch #2 I can turn it off/on at will which is fine as a backup, but I
>want that functionality for #1 also.
Wondering what you're referring to here. The Z-19 as published
was for a specific engine and fuel system that offered only
1 ECU and 1 fuel pump. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z19M_1.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z19M_2.pdf
What's the "orphaned switch"?
Bob . . .
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: Fusible Link - is length of wire a concern? |
Bob,
You answered: >>
You lost me. "Fusible link wire?" If an when fusible
links are practical, the fusible link wire is but a
few inches long and enclosed in a material that minimizes
risks to adjacent wires if that particular piece of wire
burns.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=139398#139398
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: Z-19 E Bus feeder questions - Fuse selection? |
Bob,
Thank you for clarifying the Z-19 architecture drawing for this e-bus question.
I do not have all that stuff hanging off my e-bus but was thinking that maybe
somebody did. And that was the reason for their appearance in the diagram. All
those components seem reasonable to have, but like you said, maybe not all on
the e-bus.
I think I have the right mix on my own e-bus, I wanted to understand the Z-19 diagram
to a better degree, and the different fuse sizes to potential e-bus loads
led me around the bend.
Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=139400#139400
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: Jabiru Alternator Wiring |
At 09:00 AM 10/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Noel Karppinen wrote:
>
>>Hi Ken
>>
>>You said:
>>
>>>I have a relay between the alternator and the regulator for control and
>>>overvolt cutoff. It does not take a robust contactor there as it is AC
>>>current and that relay also lets me kill power to a misbehaving
>>>regulator. The B+ output of the regulator has a CB (a fuse would be
>>>fine) to protect against excess battery current going into a misbehaving
>>>regulator.
>>
>>Thanks for the infornmation. I had wondered about the possibility of
>>isolating the regulator from the alternator, but I have not seen any
>>previous references to this being done. Could you confirm that I have
>>understood this correctly. i.e that you do not have any relay between the
>>regulator output and the main bus, just the circuit breaker.
>>
>>Noel Karppinen
>
>Yes that is correct Noel. Actually I thought the current Z figure had
>also been changed to show that now. I run an electrically dependant
>engine so neither the alternator or the battery bus go through another
>battery contactor or relay. Another reason to do this might be that I
>have also found that the John Deere regulator fails instantly if run with
>a totally dead battery -which is about the same as not having a battery
>connected. (My little AGM batteries simply won't accept any significant
>current initially if they are totally dead) Maybe the big capacitor would
>protect against that but I have doubts.
>
>Peter the little VF4 relays just use our common PIDG push on
>connections. You can mount the relay in a socket if you wish but that is
>not necessary. I think B&C also sell a slightly different suitable relay
>in a plastic case that does not use a socket.
>
>Ken
>
I need to update the Jabiru drawings to reflect the
philosophy illustrated in Z-16 for Rotax. You can
make the translation yourself. The same relay is used,
it's simply moved from the DC output leg of the
regulator/rectifier to the AC interface between
alternator and regulator/rectifier.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
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: Jabiru alternators |
At 09:31 PM 10/10/2007 +1000, you wrote:
>Bob:
>
>I am a new member to the aeroelectric list, and have only recently
>downloaded a copy of you book. I posted a message a couple of days ago
>about Jabiru alternators, and so far have only received a replies from
>only one person. I have attached the messages below.
>
>
<snip>
> >
> > I have also seen a couple of schematics on builders web sites with
> > slightly different approaches. One used the alternator switch to both
> > disconnect the regulator sense line from the main bus and control a
> > relay connecting the regulator output line to the main bus, but no
> > capacitor. The other had a relay only in the regulator output line.
> > The sense line was left connected to the main bus, and would therefore
> > have still been at +12V ( at least until the battery discharged) if
> > the alternator switch was opened. Once again, no capacitor. What are
> > the advantages or problems associated with these approaches?
There are many approaches to system architecture
and I've been asked many times to convince someone
as to the value of one approach over another. I
crafted the words in Chapter 17 to explain the
simple ideas behind the drawings published in
Appendix Z. It's beyond the scope of my mission
and hours-in-the-day to do critical design review
on the myriad of alternative schemes.
Virtually every alternative offers some level of
performance and functionality . . . and is not
intrinsically "unsafe" as long as the design rules
for fusing, wire sizing, ov protection, etc. are
observed. Keep in mind that only an exceedingly
tiny percentage of serious accidents begin with
electrical system problems . . . and most of those
had nothing to do with architecture.
A design goal for the Z-figures is to craft an
elegant solution supported by a published
operating and design philosophy. I am in no way
suggesting that the 'Connection offers an "ultimate
solution." The 'Connection is like a favorite
restaurant that serves dishes worthy of
your continued consumption because they're
consistent and comfortably predictable. If
you understand the ingredients (simple ideas)
that go into any/all recipes for success, then the
recipe that ultimately satisfies your own design
goals becomes a matter of personal taste.
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: | Visit to Emagair |
As promised, I finally took a day off last Tuesday
and drove to Azel, TX to visit Tom and Brad at Emagair.
I only had a few hours to talk but it was a drink
from a firehose.
These guys are a uniquely talented and willing team
of individuals who can close their eyes and see a
product that does not yet exist . . . and bring
it to market in a practical, measured and honorable way.
If there's a down-side to their product line, it's the
torrent of new and useful features that "get in the
way" of making money. There's an old saw that has
circulated around my craft for decades: "At some
point in time, you shoot the engineers and go to
production."
At the same time, it was refreshing to visit a
facility and converse with the principals in an
operation that is constantly pushing out the
boundaries of the best-they-know-how-to-do. I
just retired from an environment where the last
five years was expended putting band-aids on 15-30
year old designs.
We had a very productive meeting. I walked away
with some exciting ideas on how the technology
and processes they shared could become part
of an effort to elevate the functionality of
products for my TC aircraft customers. I'm
looking forward to an interesting, exciting
and productive future with these guys.
We agreed to put our heads together and get
synchronized on the most useful recipes for success
and I'll be updating my references to Emagair
products in the 'Connection. Hopefully in the
next 30 days or so. Right now I need to make up
for the day I blew off to go "play".
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
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: | Z-19 E Bus feeder questions |
- Fuse selection?
Bob,
Re: orphaned switch. Well, not exactly orphaned, it just seems randomly
placed for my situation. Specifically I am applying this to a system
with one ECU and two fuel pumps.
I'm on board with expected loads for the ebus and the system routing
stuff. The primary power and secondary power are set. If we loose
primary power, we turn on secondary - no problem.
If pump #1 is burning (figuratively) up and we turn on #2 (already has a
power source), we still have power to pump #1. Ok, you know these
automotive jobs will die quickly with no fuel pump, so if pump #1 fails
we need to turn on pump #2. Not a problem, but there is some delay
there. A more robust way may might be to use a pressure switch to catch
#1 in the event of a failure and flip over to #2 auto-magically.
Given all that I would like to isolate #1 should the above events occur.
I would like to add auto failover or at least have the ability to switch
each fuel pump on independent of each other regardless of their
relationship to primary or secondary power.
I agree with your thoughts on limiting the e-bus (in an emergency) to
bare bones equipment, however the diagram showing the primary feed as 7
amps would be inadequate for normal use even if I only used the com
(shown 7 amps). Ok, so all of this can vary - no problem.
I would probably have an issue if under emergency mode I forget to shut
down all but non-essential (probably dark, smoke or some other ugliness)
and flip on my little 10 amp eBus alternate only to find I've just blown
a fuse which I can't replace at the moment (busy flying). I believe I
can adjust that logic and the diagram to fit.
Perhaps select items like the MX20 and 530W should be split out onto
another bus to bring the total load down. My setup is a more complex IFR
support. Just more considerations.
There rest of the diagram looks solid (at least from my understanding).
One question? Do I need both the shunt and the ANL in front of the
alternator as shown? My Subaru has the built in regulator, but I would
still like to add an OV protection module.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: [Probable SPAM] AeroElectric-List: Z-19 E Bus feeder
questions - Fuse selection?
--> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
At 02:15 PM 10/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Mike,
> I'll wait for the Bob's definitive answer but this makes no
>sense. That would be like adding a 100 am panel to your home and
>feeding it off a 20 amp breaker in your main panel.
>
> The lead from the main power bus to the endurance bus should
>be a direct feed from the same terminal as the main feed. Between them
>is a diode to prevent backflow if the e-bus alternate is used.
>
> Also, I have an issue with the orphaned switch for fuel pump
>#2. Why not integrate it with the engine primary and secondary
>switching? Note that if fuel pump #1 makes trouble, this diagram
>provides no way to isolate it, but rather one method to switch the bus
>that feeds it. With switch #2 I can turn it off/on at will which is
>fine as a backup, but I want that functionality for #1 also.
Wondering what you're referring to here. The Z-19 as published
was for a specific engine and fuel system that offered only
1 ECU and 1 fuel pump. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z19M_1.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z19M_2.pdf
What's the "orphaned switch"?
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: | Switch selection . . . |
Comments/Questions: Hey Bob...
I know that in the past you have said "115 VAC rating is directly
translatable to 14 VDC applications"
I want to use these mini toggle switches on some panels I am building and I
was wondering what kind of load you think I could safely/continuously run
thorough them:
SPECIFICATIONS
Contact ratings (resistive loads): Gold plated brass; 0.4 Volt-Amps max. at
20 V max.
Silver; 3 Amps at 250 VAC, 6 Amps at 125 VAC or 4 Amps at 30 VDC
Gold plated silver; 3 Amps at 250 VAC, 6 Amps at 125 VAC or 4 Amps at 30
VDC. Gold plating withstands up to 100 mA at 30 VDC.
Initial contact resistance: 10 milliohms maximum
Insulation resistance: 1000 megohms min. at 500 VDC
Dielectric strength: 1000 V rms min. - between terminals
1500 V rms min. - between poles and terminals and frame
Electrical life: Gold: 100,000 cycles min.
Silver (at full load): SP & DP - 50,000 cycles min. 3P: 40,000 cycles min.
4P: 30,000 cycles min.
Operating temperature range: -40C to +85C
They are the series 5000 minis from APEM and you can see the doc on them here:
http://www.apem.com/pdf/APEM_A.pdf
Their ratings are pretty clear. They call out 4A at 30 VAC
(probably a resistive load) and 6A at 125 VAC. The DC rating
will get better as the voltage goes down . . . ergo my earlier
assertion that 125 VAC ratings sit the same pew as 14 VDC
ratings is still pretty good.
Your concerns for "safety" can be addressed only with
architecture, Plan-A/Plan-B designs and operating
philosophies. These switches are rated for 30-50K
cycles as controllers of major current . . . 100K
cycles for low currents where you don't blow the gold
off. I can tell you that none of these switches will
make it to catalog ratings . . . not because you've
poorly selected a switch but because over the decades
it takes to put that many cycles on the switch,
environmental effects will prevail.
So, once we accept the fact that EVERY switch will
fail at some point in time . . . and assuming we've
designed to be failure tolerant, then it matters
not what switches you install from a safety perspective.
The only future effect on your decisions will be on
cost of ownership.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me. )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
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: Visit to Emagair |
Hey Bob,
Aren't you retired? :)
Regards,
Matt-
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> As promised, I finally took a day off last Tuesday
> and drove to Azel, TX to visit Tom and Brad at Emagair.
> I only had a few hours to talk but it was a drink
> from a firehose.
>
snip
> products in the 'Connection. Hopefully in the
> next 30 days or so. Right now I need to make up
> for the day I blew off to go "play".
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
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 |
|
At 01:53 PM 10/11/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>Re: orphaned switch. Well, not exactly orphaned, it just seems randomly
>placed for my situation. Specifically I am applying this to a system
>with one ECU and two fuel pumps.
Okay, I don't show that in Z-19. Z-19 was crafted to
address the specifics of an engine that had only
one fuel pump and one ECU . . . and the builder's
desire to have two power sources of power for
that combination.
Your choice/need to have a second pump is a new
design goal. How will you become aware of the failure
of #1 pump in flight? What is the value of being able
to remove the #2 pump from the system if its pressure
goes down. Should the pumps be plumbed in series or
would they be better plumbed in parallel?
Adding the second pump opens a whole new catalog
of considerations for how it will be used and
under what conditions. But I suspect the need to
shut off a failed #1 pump before bringing the #2
pump on line is very low if not zero.
>I'm on board with expected loads for the ebus and the system routing
>stuff. The primary power and secondary power are set. If we loose
>primary power, we turn on secondary - no problem.
>
>If pump #1 is burning (figuratively) up and we turn on #2 (already has a
>power source), we still have power to pump #1. Ok, you know these
>automotive jobs will die quickly with no fuel pump, so if pump #1 fails
>we need to turn on pump #2. Not a problem, but there is some delay
>there. A more robust way may might be to use a pressure switch to catch
>#1 in the event of a failure and flip over to #2 auto-magically.
This pre-supposes some advance ideas of how the pumps
fail. Every automotive pump electrical failure I've
encountered caused the pump to draw zero current. The
siren call of automatic changeover systems is strong . . .
but they add complexity in both system design but
operationally (another thing to preflight).
>Given all that I would like to isolate #1 should the above events occur.
>I would like to add auto failover or at least have the ability to switch
>each fuel pump on independent of each other regardless of their
>relationship to primary or secondary power.
>
>I agree with your thoughts on limiting the e-bus (in an emergency) to
>bare bones equipment, however the diagram showing the primary feed as 7
>amps would be inadequate for normal use even if I only used the com
>(shown 7 amps). Ok, so all of this can vary - no problem.
>
>I would probably have an issue if under emergency mode I forget to shut
>down all but non-essential (probably dark, smoke or some other ugliness)
>and flip on my little 10 amp eBus alternate only to find I've just blown
>a fuse which I can't replace at the moment (busy flying). I believe I
>can adjust that logic and the diagram to fit.
If that fuse powers something absolutely needed for
comfortable termination of flight and you don't have
a backup for that system, then replacing the fuse
is a waste of valuable time. Your system needs to be
crafted such that the time to shift from Plan-A to
Plan-B is no longer than what it takes to perceive,
interpret and react with the throwing of no more than
a couple of switches. I.e, 5 seconds or less.
Fiddling with fuses does not fit this operating
philosophy. Besides, replacing a fuse is most likely
to blow another fuse and leave you in the same
position that you were in before you started digging
around for spare fuses.
>Perhaps select items like the MX20 and 530W should be split out onto
>another bus to bring the total load down. My setup is a more complex IFR
>support. Just more considerations.
>
>There rest of the diagram looks solid (at least from my understanding).
>One question? Do I need both the shunt and the ANL in front of the
>alternator as shown? My Subaru has the built in regulator, but I would
>still like to add an OV protection module.
Your choice. You should have the ANL but the shunt
can go anywhere or be left out all together. How
do you plan to make good used of the data that an
ammeter on the shunt will offer? Is that data useful
in flight? Is there a way to reduce or eliminate in-flight
usefulness of that data?
Bob . . .
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: [Probable SPAM] Z-19 E Bus feeder questions |
<snip>
If pump #1 is burning (figuratively) up and we turn on #2 (already has a
power source), we still have power to pump #1. Ok, you know these
automotive jobs will die quickly with no fuel pump, so if pump #1 fails
we need to turn on pump #2. Not a problem, but there is some delay
there. A more robust way may might be to use a pressure switch to catch
#1 in the event of a failure and flip over to #2 auto-magically.
Given all that I would like to isolate #1 should the above events occur.
I would like to add auto failover or at least have the ability to switch
each fuel pump on independent of each other regardless of their
relationship to primary or secondary power.
<snip>
You can look at auto-failover design that Jan Eggenfeller and Gary
Newsted show in their original installation manual
(www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/iindex.htm). However their bad
experiences with pressure switches have led them to abandon that
approach. It's additional failure modes overshadowed it's usefulness.
They now recommend each pump be a simple on-off switch, powered by it's
respective battery. For takeoff and landing, turn both pumps (and
ignition switches) on, so no power loss if one fails. At a safe
altitude, turn off the aux pump and ignition - now you have time to
react if something fails. I have warning lights (LEDs) that are on when
my aux pump and aux ignition are on.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A-EH6 (painting and final assembly)
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: Visit to Emagair |
At 01:48 PM 10/11/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Hey Bob,
>
>Aren't you retired? :)
Uhhh . . . sorta. I'm exploring potential
opportunities to do things for others that
my last billet deduced were of insufficient
value to exploit. However, I'm discovering that
the industry's affliction with MBAD (masterful
business management disease) is pretty wide
spread. I'll give it a try but I'm not going
to die on that hill either.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
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: Visit to Emagair |
Bob,
Thank you from all of us "builders" out here who look to you for insight and
guidance. Just want you to know we appreciate all you do and especially the
"CEUs" you continue to garner. Anxiously awaiting the re-draw on the P-Mags
for Z13/8...
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Fuselage"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Visit to Emagair
> <mprather@spro.net>
>
> Hey Bob,
>
> Aren't you retired? :)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>>
>> As promised, I finally took a day off last Tuesday
>> and drove to Azel, TX to visit Tom and Brad at Emagair.
>> I only had a few hours to talk but it was a drink
>> from a firehose.
>>
> snip
>
>> products in the 'Connection. Hopefully in the
>> next 30 days or so. Right now I need to make up
>> for the day I blew off to go "play".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
>
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: Visit to Emagair |
I was jerking your chain.. :) My dad "retired" 2 years ago, and has
decidedly less "free time" now than before.
MBMD, MBAMD or whatever is very prevalent in all walks of life. Certainly
it's in government too (I have friends/siblings there). It's just there
aren't the normal market forces in government...
Regards,
Matt-
do not archive
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 01:48 PM 10/11/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>> <mprather@spro.net>
>>
>>Hey Bob,
>>
>>Aren't you retired? :)
>
> Uhhh . . . sorta. I'm exploring potential
> opportunities to do things for others that
> my last billet deduced were of insufficient
> value to exploit. However, I'm discovering that
> the industry's affliction with MBAD (masterful
> business management disease) is pretty wide
> spread. I'll give it a try but I'm not going
> to die on that hill either.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> ( "Problems are the price of progress. )
> ( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
> ( Good news weakens me." )
> ( -Charles F. Kettering- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
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: Visit to Emagair |
I just want to say thanks again for all your knowledge and replys to all
of us homebuilders out there. My toy has been flying for a few years no
w and with your help it has performed perfectly.... You are the "man"..
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
olls.bob@cox.net>
As promised, I finally took a day off last Tuesday
and drove to Azel, TX to visit Tom and Brad at Emagair.
I only had a few hours to talk but it was a drink
from a firehose.
These guys are a uniquely talented and willing team
of individuals who can close their eyes and see a
product that does not yet exist . . . and bring
it to market in a practical, measured and honorable way.
If there's a down-side to their product line, it's the
torrent of new and useful features that "get in the
way" of making money. There's an old saw that has
circulated around my craft for decades: "At some
point in time, you shoot the engineers and go to
production."
At the same time, it was refreshing to visit a
facility and converse with the principals in an
operation that is constantly pushing out the
boundaries of the best-they-know-how-to-do. I
just retired from an environment where the last
five years was expended putting band-aids on 15-30
year old designs.
We had a very productive meeting. I walked away
with some exciting ideas on how the technology
and processes they shared could become part
of an effort to elevate the functionality of
products for my TC aircraft customers. I'm
looking forward to an interesting, exciting
and productive future with these guys.
We agreed to put our heads together and get
synchronized on the most useful recipes for success
and I'll be updating my references to Emagair
products in the 'Connection. Hopefully in the
next 30 days or so. Right now I need to make up
for the day I blew off to go "play".
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
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 |
|
Bob,
I have decided on a ULPower 260i engine for my Europa. It has one ECU
and one fuel pump. In my book there is a Z-19 drawing, but I can't find
it on the disk I picked up at your seminar or on your latest download
from your site. Do you suppose that you could email it to me? Thanks
Vaughn Teegarden
vaughnray@bvunet.net
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: | Z-19 E Bus feeder questions - Fuse selection? |
By the way, Bob, both Z19 and Z19RB (rear battery) have 2 fuel pumps
depicted (the Eggenfellner Subs. have 2 pumps).
While Z19 only has a switch to control Pump #2, I don't see any problem with
adding a pressure fail-over switch to automatically turn on #2 in the event
#1 quits pumping.
Allen Fulmer
RV7 QB Fuselage
Eggenfellner Subaru E6T coming Dec 8th 2007
Alexander City, AL
N808AF reserved
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: RE: [Probable SPAM] AeroElectric-List: Z-19 E Bus feeder
questions - Fuse selection?
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
At 02:15 PM 10/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Mike,
> I'll wait for the Bob's definitive answer but this makes no
>sense. That would be like adding a 100 am panel to your home and feeding
>it off a 20 amp breaker in your main panel.
>
> The lead from the main power bus to the endurance bus should be
>a direct feed from the same terminal as the main feed. Between them is a
>diode to prevent backflow if the e-bus alternate is used.
>
> Also, I have an issue with the orphaned switch for fuel pump #2.
>Why not integrate it with the engine primary and secondary switching?
>Note that if fuel pump #1 makes trouble, this diagram provides no way to
>isolate it, but rather one method to switch the bus that feeds it. With
>switch #2 I can turn it off/on at will which is fine as a backup, but I
>want that functionality for #1 also.
Wondering what you're referring to here. The Z-19 as published
was for a specific engine and fuel system that offered only
1 ECU and 1 fuel pump. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z19M_1.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z19M_2.pdf
What's the "orphaned switch"?
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Greetings,
I'm new at this please be gentle. Other than a new switch (Off-Master on- Master
on, Alternator on) have there been any corrections/changes to Figure Z-8.
I can't seem to find the drawing on line. Can anybody provide a link?
Thank you in advance.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=139503#139503
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: 14V verus 28V |
I appreciate everyone's opinions and the consensus is clear. I will
be building a 12V aircraft, without worrying that I had missed
something important.
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
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! --
|