Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:14 AM - Re: ANL 60 (Kevin Boddicker)
2. 08:48 AM - Re: ANL 60 (Ken)
3. 10:38 AM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Mike)
4. 10:45 AM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Mike)
5. 11:46 AM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 11:56 AM - Wiring diagram needed for homebuilt (david stroud)
7. 02:31 PM - Re: com antenna problem (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 02:37 PM - Re: ANL 60 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 02:46 PM - Re: Erratic Alternator Control with LR3C-28 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 03:10 PM - Re: Wiring diagram needed for homebuilt (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 |
|
Thanks Ken,
I was afraid to go much larger. Have no reason to have fear accept
for lack of knowledge on the subject. I too thought the battery was
low, but when I put the charger maintainer on it, the charged light
came on within thirty seconds.
I am rethinking the whole system at this time. I have what some
consider ancient tech. Long story, but the guys in the know don't
like the drive gear arrangement etc on the case mounted alt that I have.
I am looking at B&C or Plane Power as replacements.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
Luana, IA.
On Dec 7, 2007, at 7:02 PM, Ken wrote:
>
> Hello Kevin
> As I understand it you have a 55 amp alternator and a 60 amp ANL.
> Yes the ANL is slow acting but I am not surprised that it would
> occasionally blow under the circumstances you describe. After
> startup the 55 amp nominal alternator could easilly be putting in
> excess of 60 amps when connected to a battery that has been sitting
> idle for several weeks. Personally I'd recommend the next size
> larger ANL.
> Ken
>
> Kevin Boddicker wrote:
>
>>
>> Kevin Boddicker
>> Tri Q 200 N7868B hours
>> Luana, IA.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Matt Prather wrote:
>>
>>> <mprather@spro.net <mailto:mprather@spro.net>>
>>>
>>> It's an internally regulated alternator and you "excite the
>>> field".. By
>>> what means? Are you just connecting the sense line?
>>
>>
>> I have a split rocker "ala Cessna". After start up I "turn on"
>> excite the field.
>>
>>>
>>> Do you know that the ANL is blown before turning on the
>>> alternator? I
>>> wonder if it's actually being blown out by a bad ground. I can't
>>> visualize a conduction path at the moment, but possibly the b-lead
>>> represents a ground path during starter operation?
>>>
>>> Another thought.. Are you sure it's actually a 55A alternator?
>>> Would a
>>> 110A unit blow an ANL60? Maybe not given the long time constant
>>> of ANL's,
>>> and assuming a charged battery.
>>
>>
>> It is a 55A DN alt. converted from a Geo Metro.
>> I "think I have it figured out. Not sure yet. I think the B-lead
>> at the alt contactor is so close to the alum sheet that covers the
>> firewall, or may be touching. If that is so the current could be
>> able to go to ground via the firewall, forrest of tabs, ground lug
>> to engine. I thought this last summer when I had the trouble, but
>> could not find any sign of an arc. The termination is covered with
>> black shrink tube, but it has some cracks in it. I do remember it
>> getting close to the firewall as I tightened it last Sunday night.
>> I also recall moving it away from the FW last summer and not
>> letting it get close this fall after engine reinstall. I will
>> check it out ASAP and let the group know. May be a while it is
>> snowing here, and the forecast calls for more.
>> The runway has been close since Saturday due to ice. Any comments
>> are welcome. Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>>> scheme?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60.
>>>> I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened
>>>> twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd.
>>>> The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the
>>>> engine
>>>> back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he
>>>> checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine.
>>>> After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did
>>>> have
>>>> the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall
>>>> when
>>>> I fired it up.
>>>> Not so this time.
>>>> Thanks for your help,
>>>>
>>>> Kevin Boddicker
>>>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
>>>> Luana, IA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net <mailto:nuckolls.bob@cox.net>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At 05:05 PM 12/5/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
>>>>>> idea why.
>>>>>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put
>>>>>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After
>>>>>> start up
>>>>>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
>>>>>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on.
>>>>>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have
>>>>>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not.
>>>>>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
>>>>> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
>>>>> the time without blowing the limiter?
>>>>>
>>>>> Normally, there's but two things that will open
>>>>> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
>>>>> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
>>>>> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
>>>>> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
>>>>> or external battery connected to system is
>>>>> jumper cabled in backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>>> scheme?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 |
|
Kevin
Well the thing is that the only purpose for the ANL is to prevent a fire
in the rare case of a short in the alternator or the heavy wire from the
alternator. The battery will normally supply enough current to blow a
fairly large ANL. So the only other consideration is the size of the
wire (the B lead) from the alternator. That wire is sized to handle the
current output of the alternator. A problem in the alternator or with
the wire is almost always a dead short that will flow much higher
current than the alternator could ever put out and therefore pop a large
ANL quite quickly before the wire gets hot. Generally the ANL or circuit
breaker or fuse on the B lead needs to be a bit larger than the
alternator can ever put out. Perhaps 20% higher than rated.
Even with a fully charged battery I would expect the regulator to
command max output for a few seconds after cranking. If the rpm
immediately goes high enough to actually produce max amperage you will
indeed get it. Keeping the rpm low for perhaps 20 seconds or so would
prevent tripping your ANL as the battery rapidly recovers from cranking,
but I think your symptoms are hinting that a larger ANL is a good idea.
Good luck with it.
Ken
Kevin Boddicker wrote:
> Thanks Ken,
> I was afraid to go much larger. Have no reason to have fear accept for
> lack of knowledge on the subject. I too thought the battery was low,
> but when I put the charger maintainer on it, the charged light came on
> within thirty seconds.
> I am rethinking the whole system at this time. I have what some
> consider ancient tech. Long story, but the guys in the know don't like
> the drive gear arrangement etc on the case mounted alt that I have.
> I am looking at B&C or Plane Power as replacements.
>
> Kevin Boddicker
> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
> Luana, IA.
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: | IFR instrument check question |
Data card have nothing to do with the FAA other then they be up to date
if used. Data cards are more about efficiency and making profits.
Their are many navigation computer still used today that do not use data
card and are still legal (and yes I know you can=92t use these for RNP
and
RNAV APP and DEP). If you could effectively operate a navigation unit
without the navdata cards people would be doing it. The problem is
there is just too much information that you have to be able to program
even for short flights in the IFR world.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Good Evening Frank,
You have me there! I would have to research that a bit.
I am reasonably confident that you do not need the flight manual
supplement, but you may be required to operate via the language that has
been suggested by the manufacturer for that equipment.
My understanding is that experimental aircraft are required to be
equipped for IFR flight in the same manner as are certified airplanes,
but that they do not have to have as much documentation of the
suitability of the equipment as do certified airplanes.
I am confident of the legalities as I stated for certified airplanes and
I am certain that if you meet those standards, you would have no
problems with officialdom. However, exactly how much substantiation is
required is something of which I have no knowledge.
Off the top of my head, I would think you would be able to do a lot more
self verification of data, but you would want to be sure enough of your
position so that you would be comfortable substantiating your position
at a hearing if it ever came to that.
Interesting question.
You ask: "Mind you, is it really unsafe?"
I don't think so.
Personally. I would like to see us be able to self load waypoints so
that no datacard would be required. If we do a good job of self loading
or data verification, there is absolutely no question it is safe.
The problem is that everybody does make mistakes. I think you will find
that anyone who has used flight management computers of the type used by
Korean Airlines Flight 007 will admit to having made mistakes similar to
the one they made, but that they caught it before the mistake became a
problem. The current press of the FAA is to eliminate that sort of a
mistake by requiring us to only be allowed to navigate via data that has
been preloaded into our navigational equipment via a datacard.
I don't like it, but it may be the better way, I really don't know!
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 12/7/2007 5:02:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,
frank.hinde@hp.com writes:
Thanks Bob.....
I have to ask...What flight manual supplement?.....I am experimental is
this a document that is specific to certified birds, cus I'm not sure I
have seen mine.
I agree there is a question on some of the approaches, I mean even in a
VOR/DME approach the GPS is being used in lieu of the DME so in theory
that makes VOR/DME's illegal with an expired database.
Mind you is it really unsafe?..I mean all the data is right there on the
plate and the GPS is simply measuring the distance to the runway...So
unless they moved the runway in the last month it would presumably get
you on the ground in one piece..:)
Frank
hottest products and HYPERLINK
"http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aolt
o
p00030000000002" \ntop money wasters of 2007.
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
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: | IFR instrument check question |
I would disagree with this position! If the item is placarded inop,
which means it is in effect not installed. Not to be confused with not
working. If an airplane does not have a legal MEL then all the required
equipment must be working. The exception would be equipment listed as
inoperative that is not parted of the TC listed as required equipment.
A log in this case would not be required or one could argue that the
inoperative sticker is effectively the VOR log stating that it does not
comply and does not meet the requirement for legal IFR flight. Remember
a VOR log is not defined, only what must be recorded if it has been
done.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bret
Smith
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
I gotta side with Bruce on this one.
Two years ago I was ramp checked after landing at CHA just after dark.
I
was in a rented C172 building CC time with an inoperative and placarded
NAV
radio. The inspector warned me that even with an INOP NAV I was
required to
have the VOR Check Log... He suggested removing the radio to avoid the
violation.
Lesson: If you got it, you gotta log it.
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
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: IFR instrument check question |
Good Afternoon Mike,
I am having a bit of a problem following your thought.
Are you stating that something I suggested is in error, or do you just wish
to point out that the data is not always easy to find?
The FAA has written many interpretations that the certificated folks need t
o
consider when flying IFR via GPS.
Some are pretty straight forward.
Others can be a bit obscure and open to further interpretation.
The current language of most approvals states quite clearly that the DATA
must always be current and that any waypoints used for an approach must be
retrieved from a fixed data base within the navigational unit and not from p
ilot
loaded data.
The DATA card has become the accepted method of updating the data for most
currently produced General Aviation units. There are some manufacturers wh
o
have gotten approval to use the data from an out of date card if that data
can
be verified by comparison with another current source. If the data is
current, it is usable. If it is not current, it is not usable.
Other certificated approvals have no allowance for pilot verification and
the only approved source of data is a current datacard. The language control
ling
such things is currently being rewritten by the FAA. It may change soon.
Which way it will go and whether or not it will affect the Experimental
crowd, we have no inkling at all.
If you can add any information to the mix, I would love to hear it.
If you know of a case where I am spreading false information, I am even mor
e
anxious to be apprised of that!
My belief is that such activity is what we have been discussing and it is
what I have attempted to explain. If anyone feels my thoughts are in error,
I
certainly hope they will explain why so that we can all gain a better
understanding of how to operate safely and legally within the system.
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 12/8/2007 12:41:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mlas@cox.net writes:
Data card have nothing to do with the FAA other then they be up to date if
used. Data cards are more about efficiency and making profits. Their are
many navigation computer still used today that do not use data card and are
still legal (and yes I know you can=99t use these for RNP and RNAV AP
P and DEP).
If you could effectively operate a navigation unit without the navdata card
s
people would be doing it. The problem is there is just too much informati
on
that you have to be able to program even for short flights in the IFR world
.
Mike
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
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: | Wiring diagram needed for homebuilt |
Lad...I'm getting short on time building this Fairchild project
and to be honest, I just don't want to put the time into developing
a wiring system / diagram for my project. I'm going thru enough
learning curves as it is. Blasphemy to some you may say...but is
there anyone on the list that might be willing to build me up a
wiring system for a price? The system is relatively simple...air
start solenoid for starter, one 70 amp alt, 28 volts with two
step down converters for a few 14 volt requirements, some
VFR only instruments, strobe and position lights etc.
If interested, please advise off list to dstroud@storm.ca
Thanks..
David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
C-FDWS Christavia
Fairchild 51 under construction
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: com antenna problem |
At 06:11 PM 12/7/2007 +0100, you wrote:
><theo.celis@skynet.be>
>
>Thank you Bob, Ralph & Bob F.,
>
>A few tests confirmed exactly what you said, Bob.
>Just moving my body while txmitting resulted in large
>needle deflections.
>As somebody mentioned, the RV is full metal.
>The ammeter is one that Vans sells : a 40A shunt model, -40/0/+40 scale.
>The coil is housed in an aluminum cylinder, inside the plastic instrument.
>There is a PCB with some resistors, transistors etc.
>The instrument itself is located in a centre console under the main instr
>panel.
>The voltmeters we used to play with during elec lessons were far less
>complicated...
>We measured 7mV over the shunt with all avionics turned on and when
>pressing the PTT it shot up to 12mV.
>My friend brought a handheld RX and our tx tested fine.
>
>Thanks a million for yr help.
Transistors are to radio frequency energy as
mobile homes are to tornados. It is all too
common in the OBAM aviation community that the
designers of electro-whizzies have not considered
the potential effects of radio frequency energy
coming from a perfectly normal comm transmitter
and antenna installation.
I looked at Van's listing for the -40/0/+40
instrument and it's not clear that this is
an "electronically enhanced" instrument. Other
than two wires from the shunt to the instrument,
are there any other wires that need connection
to say ship's power?
By the way, the amount of RF found in the cockpit
of an RV (due to proximity to a properly installed
comm antenna system) is no greater than what is
expected in light aircraft. It's an exceedingly
rare situation where an observed interference
between the comm transmitter and some piece of
panel mounted equipment is the fault of the
installer or serendipitous combination of conditions.
It's nearly always a shortcoming of the victim
system's design.
Do the installation instructions for this insrument
mention anything an installer should do to forestall
such interference?
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 |
|
At 08:02 PM 12/7/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Hello Kevin
>As I understand it you have a 55 amp alternator and a 60 amp ANL. Yes the
>ANL is slow acting but I am not surprised that it would occasionally blow
>under the circumstances you describe. After startup the 55 amp nominal
>alternator could easilly be putting in excess of 60 amps when connected to
>a battery that has been sitting idle for several weeks. Personally I'd
>recommend the next size larger ANL.
>Ken
ANL and ANN series devices are not called "fuses" for
a reason. The physics of their operation is described
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
Note that both of the ANL30 devices are infinite carry
time at 90 Amps! An ANL 60 is infinite carry time at
somewhere around 130 Amps. These devices are clearly
intended to avoid nuisance trips due to continuous
normal current at nameplate rating COMBINED with
the occasional bodacious inrush current or other
transient.
The problem Kevin is experiencing is certain to be
the result of some "hard" fault somewhere.
Bob . . .
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: Erratic Alternator Control with LR3C-28 |
At 12:51 PM 12/6/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>I wonder if anyone else using the LR3C-28 and the Kelly Aerospace 100 A
>gear driven alternator (common on new TCM IO-550N) has experienced erratic
>overcharging when electrical load is low? Not enough overcharge to trip
>the over voltage circuit, but enough to cause the bus voltage to reach
>30.5 V in spikes from the normal 28.5 V. This erratic voltage surging
>only occurs at engine RPM over about 2100 and when electrical load is
>below about 10 A.
>
>
>Here s just a brief run-down of the couple things I ve looked at.
>
>
>I ve replaced ground wires, circuit breakers, re-crimped all ring
>terminals and measured voltages on the regulator during flight. In
>looking at the field terminal of the LR3C (pin 4) with an oscilloscope in
>flight, I see an average voltage of about 5 to 6 volts but I also see 25
>volt spikes occurring almost all the time with spacing anywhere from about
>10 milliseconds to about 100 milliseconds. These spikes go away when
>electrical load is increased and field voltage raises above 10 V.
>
>
>At low engine RPM, less than 1200, the charging system is stable
>independent of load.
>
>
>If this subtle electrical problem is familiar to you and you have an idea
>what might be going on, I d appreciate a reply.
I've never had occasion to run this regulator/alternator
combination. In fact, beyond the original bench testing we
did for 28V systems on MUCH smaller alternators back about
15 years ago, I don't think there's been any further IR&D
investigation of this regulator's dynamic performance.
I pretty sure B&C still runs each regulator on the test
stand with a real alternator and battery but it's a cursory
acceptance test. Being a linear regulator with some unforgiving
requirements for close loop voltage stability, it would
not surprise me if your particular combination exhibits
the characteristic you've observed. Sounds to me like some
"tweaking" of internal component values may be necessary
to bring this situation to heel.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: Wiring diagram needed for homebuilt |
At 02:53 PM 12/8/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Lad...I'm getting short on time building this Fairchild project
>and to be honest, I just don't want to put the time into developing
>a wiring system / diagram for my project. I'm going thru enough
>learning curves as it is. Blasphemy to some you may say...but is
>there anyone on the list that might be willing to build me up a
>wiring system for a price? The system is relatively simple...air
>start solenoid for starter, one 70 amp alt, 28 volts with two
>step down converters for a few 14 volt requirements, some
>VFR only instruments, strobe and position lights etc.
>If interested, please advise off list to dstroud@storm.ca
>Thanks..
>
>David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
>C-FDWS Christavia
>Fairchild 51 under construction
Sorry. I've got about 300% more consulting tasks than I'd
planned to take on when I 'retired' last July. Have
you looked at Figure Z-11 in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11K.pdf
Except for deciding which devices feed from
which busses, this drawing should get you a good
start.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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! --
|