Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:28 AM - Re: Re: A Bit of Help, Please (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 05:39 AM - Re: To battery bus or not to battery bus, that IS the question. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:27 AM - Encoding Altimeter ()
4. 06:53 AM - Re: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:59 AM - Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:35 AM - Re: Dual alternator single shunt (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:50 AM - Re: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (Bret Smith)
8. 08:36 AM - Re: Dual alternator single shunt (David & Elaine Lamphere)
9. 08:36 AM - Re: Encoding Altimeter (Ernest Christley)
10. 08:45 AM - Re: LED Landing Lights (D Fritz)
11. 08:58 AM - Re: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 08:59 AM - Re: Dual alternator single shunt (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 09:18 AM - Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (grjtucson)
14. 09:35 AM - Re: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (Ron Shannon)
15. 09:48 AM - Re: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions (John McMahon)
17. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 12:14 PM - Re: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions (Glaeser, Dennis A)
19. 01:10 PM - Re: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (Ron Shannon)
20. 06:39 PM - Re: Encoding Altimeter (William Gill)
21. 07:19 PM - Re: Encoding Altimeter (BobsV35B@aol.com)
22. 07:49 PM - Re: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft ()
23. 08:17 PM - Re: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 08:33 PM - Re: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 09:12 PM - Re: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. (Ron Shannon)
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: A Bit of Help, Please |
At 12:27 AM 4/22/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob,
>Your analysis of my situation was dead on accurate. And your info was
>invaluable.
>I sincerely appreciate your response!
>Stan Sutterfield
My pleasure sir . . . it's what we do!
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: To battery bus or not to battery bus, that IS the |
question.
At 01:17 AM 4/22/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Lee,
>A slight correction. While I don't have a battery bus, I do have a fused
>wire from the hot battery terminal that powers my dimmer-controlled
>interior LED lights.
>Stan Sutterfield
Aha! Obviously it's not a "bus" (distribution to
two or more loads) but it's still an always-hot
feed directly from the battery. Even the lowly
C-140 I used to fly a lot had sort-of-a battery
bus. There were two fuseholders on a bracket
right at the battery contactor that powered the
electric clock and the Hobbs meter.
Clearly, not everyone will need this feature in
their project but it's one of those things
easily added at some later time to support an
upgrade of system features (like sticking an SD-8
on Z11 to make it Z13 an SD-20 to make it a Z12).
The caveats are simple suggestions to be mindful
of crash safety (e.g. limiting protection sizes) and
failure mode effects analysis (e.g. driving electrically
dependent engines directly from hot battery sources)
for the purpose of achieving design goals.
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: | Encoding Altimeter |
4/22/2008
Hello Bill, Thanks for your input. You wrote:
1) "OR...you could buy a Dynon ........."
Since the Dynon units do not contain a TSO'd altitude encoder operating the
Dynon unit alone to feed a transponder in flight would presently leave one
in violation of FAR Sec 91.217 (as interpreted by FAA HQ). There are two
ways to approach this condition:
A) Purchase and install a separate TSO'd altitude encoder and use that
encoder to feed the aircraft's transponder.
B) Decide that violation of 91.217 is an acceptable risk and feed the
transponder from the non TSO'd altitude encoder contained in the Dynon unit.
2) ".....and save even more during the IFR recertification check."
My local avionics shop charges a flat fee for the FAR Sections 91.411 and
91.413 required testing. This fee has been the same no matter whether I do
the labor of removing and reinstalling the altimeter and TSO'd altitude
encoder, for bench testing and any adjustments needed prior to the airplane
side testing, or they do that labor. (By the way, four years ago that flat
fee was $150, now it is $300.)
3) "........the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their
accuracy and simplicity."
I hope that the avionics shops continue this practice without any regard for
what FAR Sec 91.217 says.
4) ".......the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their
accuracy and simplicity."
I wonder about the complexity of removing and reinstalling an EFIS from the
airplane compared to the complexity of removing and reinstalling an
altimeter and separate TSO'd altitude encoder should any bench testing and
adjusting be needed.
A) Maybe EFIS removal and reinstallation is no big deal, but I envision a
bunch of connections, particularly if it is the type of EFIS that also
includes displaying engine performance parameters.
B) Maybe the EFIS's have no means of local avionics shop adjustment.
C) Maybe the EFIS's would never need adjustment.
D) What has been the experience of EFIS operators that have actually been
through FAR 91.411 and 91.413 checks, as appropriate, after flying for at
least two years?
Would any EFIS owners and operators care to comment on these points?.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
---------------------------------------------------
Time: 09:05:34 PM PST US
From: "William Gill" <wgill10@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter
OR...you could buy a Dynon and save even more during the IFR
recertification check. In fact, the avionics shops actually prefer the
Dynon due to their accuracy and simplicity.
Bill
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: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions |
At 03:33 PM 4/18/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bob.
>
>Started out with your published z14 drawing and began to understand the
>flow with them
>
>Then found the string referencing the z14_rough that uses non-local
>ground. Reviewed options and decided I wanted to use a central primary
>ground on the firewall / engine block.
>
>That particular string also is where the discussion of keeping the XFEED
>CNTCTR and the Battery Cntctrs located close and connected using
>copper/brass strapping which drove me to drawing up the very rough sketch
>with only one + fat wire running from the back to the front.
>
>I think the biggest weakness of the one wire concept is that I would
>loose some of the benefit of the aux alternator as it would have to keep
>the aux battery cntctr closed. Think I read in either the
>connection or the list that it takes about 1amp to keep the
>contactor closed. Obviously, Id lose 1/8th of the output of the SD8 in
>that scenario. Assuming that its okay to physically mount the xfeed
>contactor at the front instead of with the battery contactors, the only
>real advantage is one less + fat wire. Would still have to run
>something from the Aux alt and aux bus to the rear but it could be a
>smaller wire.
>
>So all that said, maybe the simplest most efficient design would be moving
>the xfeed contactor to the front.
>
>Also pondering the physical location of the battery bus (ie, the always
>hot bus). From what I can read it appears the recommendation is always
>having this bus physically located within 6-8 inches of the
>battery. Obviously this requires running wiring from the front to the
>back for all devices that you want powered via the battery bus. An option
>that I never see mentioned and therefore assume is a bad idea is to run
>one heavier wire from the rear mounted battery and physically locate the
>battery bus in the front. Again, I assume this is a bad idea but would
>you comment on why Im assuming that you wouldnt want a non-fused
>wire ran that distance but thought Id ask anyway.
>
>These rear-mounted batteries are requiring some noodling as to where to
>physically mount things. Guess that's why they call it experimental :)
>
>Thanks again for all your input. It sure helps to bounce things off
>someone that has done this more than once before.
>
>Doug
I've been pondering this discussion for the last day or so and
I wasn't pleased with the lack of elegance. It seemed that your
design goals were not well served with the present suite of hardware
(too heavy).
An FMEA study of Z-13/8 yields and excellent reliability scenario
but it cannot address the fact that some modern EFIS products are
unable to deal with the real world of millisecond long, bus brownout
during starter-inrush loads. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1.jpg
Indeed, all single-battery systems are not designed to provide
a constant source of power that stays inside the operating
envelope of these computer based products.
One obvious solution is a second battery. The question is
how big? It only needs to supply power to a limited suite of
ship's hardware for a few tens of milliseconds while the starter
motor spins up at the onset of each cranking cycle. In terms
of ENERGY, the requirements are trivial. So the real sizing
considerations are for internal impedance of the battery. Ideally,
we'd like to put an array of AA NiMh cells in to support the e-bus
during brownout . . . but these cells have finicky charging
requirements. It's not that they wouldn't do the job . . . but
system design issues are more complex and parts count goes
up.
So what's a reasonable middle ground? Take a peek at:
Take a peek at this drawing I did last night:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8A(BrownOutBattery).pdf
Here I've suggested that you dump the #2 fat battery and
the fat contactors associated with #2 master and crossfeed.
Install a much smaller (7.2 AH, 5.5# 0.04 ohm) "brownout
battery" and a pair of cube power relays wired such that
the e-bus is supported ONLY by the brownout battery during
engine cranking and only while the main bus is loaded so
heavily that it cannot keep the EFIS from resetting.
This same technique could be added to any single battery
system (or even Z-14 where you wanted to use both batteries
for cranking). This modification to Z-13 does not burden the
SD-8 with supporting fat contactors that are never expected
to carry cranking currents . . . hence may be ably replaced
with smaller, plastic relays.
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: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
I've been pondering this discussion for the last day or so and
I wasn't pleased with the lack of elegance. It seemed that your
design goals were not well served with the present suite of hardware
(too heavy).
An FMEA study of Z-13/8 yields and excellent reliability scenario
but it cannot address the fact that some modern EFIS products are
unable to deal with the real world of millisecond long, bus brownout
during starter-inrush loads. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1.jpg
Indeed, no single-battery systems is designed to provide
a constant source of power that stays inside the operating
envelope of these computer based products.
One obvious solution is a second battery. The question is
how big? It only needs to supply power to a limited suite of
ship's hardware for a few tens of milliseconds while the starter
motor spins up at the onset of each cranking cycle. In terms
of ENERGY, the requirements are trivial. So the real sizing
considerations are for internal impedance of the battery. Ideally,
we'd like to put an array of AA NiMh cells in to support the e-bus
during brownout . . . but these cells have finicky charging
requirements. It's not that they wouldn't do the job . . . but
system design issues are more complex and parts count goes
up.
So what's a reasonable middle ground? Take a peek at:
Take a peek at this drawing I did last night:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8A(BrownOutBattery).pdf
Here I've suggested that you dump the #2 fat battery and
the fat contactors associated with #2 master and crossfeed.
Install a much smaller (7.2 AH, 5.5# 0.04 ohm) "brownout
battery" and a pair of cube power relays wired such that
the e-bus is supported ONLY by the brownout battery during
engine cranking and only while the main bus is loaded so
heavily that it cannot keep the EFIS from resetting.
This same technique could be added to any single battery
system (or even Z-14 where you wanted to use both batteries
for cranking). This modification to Z-13 does not burden the
SD-8 with supporting fat contactors that are never expected
to carry cranking currents . . . hence may be ably replaced
with smaller, plastic relays.
P.S. Here's an exemplar battery that seems well suited to
this task:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Batteries/Panasonic/LC-R127R2P.pdf
Bob . . .
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: Dual alternator single shunt |
At 08:35 PM 4/21/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>Take a look at Z-12. As is the case in most all of Bob's schematics (I
>think) the shunt is in series with the alternator output, which connects
>to the upstream side of the starter contactor. The starter motor current
>goes through the starter contactor. That heavy current does not split off
>to the side, through the alternator. In that position the shunt senses the
>output of the alternator.
>
>Ron
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM, David & Elaine Lamphere
><<mailto:lamphere@vabb.com>lamphere@vabb.com> wrote:
>><<mailto:lamphere@vabb.com>lamphere@vabb.com>
>>
>>I just have to ask ....
>>
>>If you use a shunt that "sees" all current flowing from the battery and
>>the starter draws 200a, doesn't that hit the 50ma ammeter (if using a 40a
>>shunt) with 250ma?? Doesn't seem like that would do the ammeter any good...
>>
>>I must be missing something about this... sorry..
>>
>>Dave
Ron, that is correct. In the instrumentation chapter of the Connection
I suggested that one MIGHT install a battery ammeter in series
with the battery as long as the equipment (shunt size for wattage
dissipation) and the associated instrument was not adversely
affected by the starter inrush currents during cranking. This
was a bit of a brain fart that wound up in print and I should have
fixed it years ago. In the TC experimental instrumentation business,
we stick all kinds of shunts about anywhere there is a curiosity
about current flows . . . including in series with batteries. But
to consider this particular architecture as the normal operating
system for an airplane is exceedingly inelegant.
If one is interested in knowing currents during normal flight
then having a way to observe alternator loading is about as
useful as anything one might choose to do . . . hence later
recommendations in the Z-figures that alternator loadmeters
be a part of ship's instrumentation.
I'm working on an e-book version of the 'Connection along
with an overhaul of several chapters. R12 will include
a rewrite of the instrumentation chapter which will
(among other things) delete the suggestion of a battery
ammeter shunt. In fact, the whole idea of a battery ammeter
will be discussed for the purposes of illuminating history
but it will NOT be recommended for new design.
Bob . . .
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: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
Bob, this is similar to our design I showed you when you were in Atlanta...
http://www.flightinnovations.com/images/wiring/Main%20Power%20Distribution%20010308.JPG
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Canopy"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:54 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S.
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> I've been pondering this discussion for the last day or so and
> I wasn't pleased with the lack of elegance. It seemed that your
> design goals were not well served with the present suite of hardware
> (too heavy).
>
> An FMEA study of Z-13/8 yields and excellent reliability scenario
> but it cannot address the fact that some modern EFIS products are
> unable to deal with the real world of millisecond long, bus brownout
> during starter-inrush loads. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1.jpg
>
> Indeed, no single-battery systems is designed to provide
> a constant source of power that stays inside the operating
> envelope of these computer based products.
>
> One obvious solution is a second battery. The question is
> how big? It only needs to supply power to a limited suite of
> ship's hardware for a few tens of milliseconds while the starter
> motor spins up at the onset of each cranking cycle. In terms
> of ENERGY, the requirements are trivial. So the real sizing
> considerations are for internal impedance of the battery. Ideally,
> we'd like to put an array of AA NiMh cells in to support the e-bus
> during brownout . . . but these cells have finicky charging
> requirements. It's not that they wouldn't do the job . . . but
> system design issues are more complex and parts count goes
> up.
>
> So what's a reasonable middle ground? Take a peek at:
>
>
> Take a peek at this drawing I did last night:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8A(BrownOutBattery).pdf
>
> Here I've suggested that you dump the #2 fat battery and
> the fat contactors associated with #2 master and crossfeed.
> Install a much smaller (7.2 AH, 5.5# 0.04 ohm) "brownout
> battery" and a pair of cube power relays wired such that
> the e-bus is supported ONLY by the brownout battery during
> engine cranking and only while the main bus is loaded so
> heavily that it cannot keep the EFIS from resetting.
>
> This same technique could be added to any single battery
> system (or even Z-14 where you wanted to use both batteries
> for cranking). This modification to Z-13 does not burden the
> SD-8 with supporting fat contactors that are never expected
> to carry cranking currents . . . hence may be ably replaced
> with smaller, plastic relays.
>
> P.S. Here's an exemplar battery that seems well suited to
> this task:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Batteries/Panasonic/LC-R127R2P.pdf
>
>
> 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: | Re: Dual alternator single shunt |
Ron, Bob,
Please understand that I was and still am in agreement with the location of
the shunt as shown in the schematic you mentioned. While my electrical
system will be simpler, that is the route I am taking.
It just sounded like the individual that started this thread was
contemplating a singular shunt for the whole system (where the starter
current would go through the shunt). Thanks for making clear the details.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual alternator single shunt
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 08:35 PM 4/21/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>Take a look at Z-12. As is the case in most all of Bob's schematics (I
>>think) the shunt is in series with the alternator output, which connects
>>to the upstream side of the starter contactor. The starter motor current
>>goes through the starter contactor. That heavy current does not split off
>>to the side, through the alternator. In that position the shunt senses the
>>output of the alternator.
>>
>>Ron
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM, David & Elaine Lamphere
>><<mailto:lamphere@vabb.com>lamphere@vabb.com> wrote:
>>><<mailto:lamphere@vabb.com>lamphere@vabb.com>
>>>
>>>I just have to ask ....
>>>
>>>If you use a shunt that "sees" all current flowing from the battery and
>>>the starter draws 200a, doesn't that hit the 50ma ammeter (if using a 40a
>>>shunt) with 250ma?? Doesn't seem like that would do the ammeter any
>>>good...
>>>
>>>I must be missing something about this... sorry..
>>>
>>>Dave
>
> Ron, that is correct. In the instrumentation chapter of the Connection
> I suggested that one MIGHT install a battery ammeter in series
> with the battery as long as the equipment (shunt size for wattage
> dissipation) and the associated instrument was not adversely
> affected by the starter inrush currents during cranking. This
> was a bit of a brain fart that wound up in print and I should have
> fixed it years ago. In the TC experimental instrumentation business,
> we stick all kinds of shunts about anywhere there is a curiosity
> about current flows . . . including in series with batteries. But
> to consider this particular architecture as the normal operating
> system for an airplane is exceedingly inelegant.
>
> If one is interested in knowing currents during normal flight
> then having a way to observe alternator loading is about as
> useful as anything one might choose to do . . . hence later
> recommendations in the Z-figures that alternator loadmeters
> be a part of ship's instrumentation.
>
> I'm working on an e-book version of the 'Connection along
> with an overhaul of several chapters. R12 will include
> a rewrite of the instrumentation chapter which will
> (among other things) delete the suggestion of a battery
> ammeter shunt. In fact, the whole idea of a battery ammeter
> will be discussed for the purposes of illuminating history
> but it will NOT be recommended for new design.
>
> 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: Encoding Altimeter |
bakerocb@cox.net wrote:
>
> A) Maybe EFIS removal and reinstallation is no big deal, but I
> envision a bunch of connections, particularly if it is the type of
> EFIS that also includes displaying engine performance parameters.
I don't know about others, but the Dynon unit is one DB-25 connector and
the pitot, static, and AoA connections.
http://www.dynonavionics.com/downloads/EFIS%20D100.pdf
It slides into a rack with one screw to lock it into place.
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: LED Landing Lights |
Thanks Bob, can't wait to see the news!
Dan
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
At 10:41 AM 4/22/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Bob, this is similar to our design I showed you when you were in Atlanta...
>http://www.flightinnovations.com/images/wiring/Main%20Power%20Distribution%20010308.JPG
Yeah . . . but the only time the brownout battery gets
properly attached to the system for charge maintenance is
when the e-bus alternate feed switch is closed.
The architecture I posted keeps the brownout battery
connected across the main battery at all times except while
cranking the engine. Zero demands on pilot for proper
orientation of switches.
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: Dual alternator single shunt |
At 11:37 AM 4/22/2008 -0400, you wrote:
><lamphere@vabb.com>
>
>Ron, Bob,
>
>Please understand that I was and still am in agreement with the location
>of the shunt as shown in the schematic you mentioned. While my electrical
>system will be simpler, that is the route I am taking.
>
>It just sounded like the individual that started this thread was
>contemplating a singular shunt for the whole system (where the starter
>current would go through the shunt). Thanks for making clear the details.
>
>Dave
My reply was intended to address all the conversation about shunts
wherein one thread was talking about load-meters and the other was
getting battery-ammeters stirred into the same conversation. Don't
recall exactly what was said by whom but there was no intention
of "standing anyone against the wall."
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net wrote:
> At 10:41 AM 4/22/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
> Yeah . . . but the only time the brownout battery gets
> properly attached to the system for charge maintenance is
> when the e-bus alternate feed switch is closed.
>
> The architecture I posted keeps the brownout battery
> connected across the main battery at all times except while
> cranking the engine. Zero demands on pilot for proper
> orientation of switches.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
I like the new drawing but help me out in understanding how the E-Bus alternate
feed relay gets energized and thus energizes the e-bus in the event the master
switch is open. If I don't have power to the main bus, there is no power to
the e-bus unless the alt. feed relay is closed, but the only way for the alt.
feed relay to close is for there to be power to the e-bus.
Shouldn't the alt. feed relay magnet positive terminal come from the BATTERY bus
and then go to the switched ground, or be switched power to that positive terminal
and then go to ground?
Unless I am totally missing something...
George
Tucson, AZ
RV-7
--------
George Jenson -
Tucson, AZ - RV-7 Standard Build
Empennage Completed 1/06
Wings Completed 11/06
Fuselage in Progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178477#178477
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: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
> ...
> Take a peek at this drawing I did last night:
>
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8A(BrownOutBattery).pdf<http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8A%28BrownOutBattery%29.pdf>
>
> Here I've suggested that you dump the #2 fat battery and
> the fat contactors associated with #2 master and crossfeed.
> Install a much smaller (7.2 AH, 5.5# 0.04 ohm) "brownout
> battery" and a pair of cube power relays wired such that
> the e-bus is supported ONLY by the brownout battery during
> engine cranking and only while the main bus is loaded so
> heavily that it cannot keep the EFIS from resetting.
>
> This same technique could be added to any single battery
> system (or even Z-14 where you wanted to use both batteries
> for cranking). This modification to Z-13 does not burden the
> SD-8 with supporting fat contactors that are never expected
> to carry cranking currents . . . hence may be ably replaced
> with smaller, plastic relays.
>
> P.S. Here's an exemplar battery that seems well suited to
> this task:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Batteries/Panasonic/LC-R127R2P.pdf
>
Bob,
I like the idea of using the starter switch to trigger brown out protection.
Although my AFS EFIS's aren't subject to the dropout (they will go to their
internal backup battery automagically if needed) I'm thinking of using the
AUX battery mgmt. module scheme, which includes manual switching to bring
the AUX battery back online to extend E-bus life. Presumably, it won't be
hard to parallel the starter switch with the AUX battery mgmt. manual switch
to combine the functionality.
Also, FWIW, B&C has a similar battery (BC102-1) that is listed as 0.45
pounds lighter than the Panasonic.
Ron
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: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
>
>Bob,
>
>I like the new drawing but help me out in understanding how the E-Bus
>alternate feed relay gets energized and thus energizes the e-bus in the
>event the master switch is open.
>
>If I don't have power to the main bus, there is no power to the e-bus
>unless the alt. feed relay is closed, but the only way for the alt. feed
>relay to close is for there to be power to the e-bus.
>
>Shouldn't the alt. feed relay magnet positive terminal come from the
>BATTERY bus and then go to the switched ground, or be switched power to
>that positive terminal and then go to ground.
>
>Unless I am totally missing something...
Good eye! Thank you. I've published revision B
to correct the error at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8B(BrownOutBattery).pdf
Bob . . .
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: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions |
Bob, Very interesting discussion....
We are (were) planning on using Z19RB architecture. Granted, that requires
2 full size batteries (17- 20 AH) which we feel would provide sufficient
backup power in the event of alternator failure, redundant power sources for
the dual fuel pump and ignition required for the 20b Mazda rotory engine and
avoids the added expense and complication of the extra alternator. To
insure good batteries one would be replaced each year.
Our thought was the two batteries would provide adequate power even during
starts to prevent brownouts and a minimum of one and a half hours battery
power (with load shedding of course) in the event of an alternator failure.
We have not tested this battery endurance yet as the panel is not finished.
The brownout relay got me thinking about Z13/8 again....
Any thoughts????
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 03:33 PM 4/18/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)
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: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
At 09:30 AM 4/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
><<mailto:nuckolls.bob@cox.net>nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
>>...
>>
>> Take a peek at this drawing I did last night:
>>
>><http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8A%28BrownOutBattery%29.pdf>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8A(BrownOutBattery).pdf
>>
>> Here I've suggested that you dump the #2 fat battery and
>> the fat contactors associated with #2 master and crossfeed.
>> Install a much smaller (7.2 AH, 5.5# 0.04 ohm) "brownout
>> battery" and a pair of cube power relays wired such that
>> the e-bus is supported ONLY by the brownout battery during
>> engine cranking and only while the main bus is loaded so
>> heavily that it cannot keep the EFIS from resetting.
>>
>> This same technique could be added to any single battery
>> system (or even Z-14 where you wanted to use both batteries
>> for cranking). This modification to Z-13 does not burden the
>> SD-8 with supporting fat contactors that are never expected
>> to carry cranking currents . . . hence may be ably replaced
>> with smaller, plastic relays.
>>
>> P.S. Here's an exemplar battery that seems well suited to
>> this task:
>>
>><http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Batteries/Panasonic/LC-R127R2P.pdf>http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Batteries/Panasonic/LC-R127R2P.pdf
>
>Bob,
>
>I like the idea of using the starter switch to trigger brown out protection.
>
>Although my AFS EFIS's aren't subject to the dropout (they will go to
>their internal backup battery automagically if needed) I'm thinking of
>using the AUX battery mgmt. module scheme, which includes manual switching
>to bring the AUX battery back online to extend E-bus life. Presumably, it
>won't be hard to parallel the starter switch with the AUX battery mgmt.
>manual switch to combine the functionality.
? if your EFIS is already brown-out proof, what's the
task for an aux battery?
>Also, FWIW, B&C has a similar battery (BC102-1) that is listed as 0.45
>pounds lighter than the Panasonic.
Yeah, there's a bunch of possibilities. I'm still pondering
a DIY project or perhaps a product for incorporation of some
small capacity (read light weight) energy storage devices
into an automatically managed brown-out battery assembly.
Bob . . .
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: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions |
I have essentially the Z19RB architecture on my Subaru powered RV-7A.
For starting, I leave the Aux Bat master OFF and turn on the E-Bus which
means the starter uses only the main battery and the aux battery powers
the electronics without brownout. Once started, the Aux master comes on
and the E-bus switch goes off. Works great.
Dennis Glaeser
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John McMahon
Bob, Very interesting discussion....
We are (were) planning on using Z19RB architecture. Granted, that
requires
2 full size batteries (17- 20 AH) which we feel would provide sufficient
backup power in the event of alternator failure, redundant power sources
for
the dual fuel pump and ignition required for the 20b Mazda rotory engine
and
avoids the added expense and complication of the extra alternator. To
insure good batteries one would be replaced each year.
Our thought was the two batteries would provide adequate power even
during
starts to prevent brownouts and a minimum of one and a half hours
battery
power (with load shedding of course) in the event of an alternator
failure.
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: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
>
>
> ? if your EFIS is already brown-out proof, what's the
> task for an aux battery?
If I do add an AUX battery, it would be for extended E-bus run time. I
wouldn't add AUX battery weight for brown out protection alone, unless there
was something else....
Wait! It would also keep my IIRG (Intergalactic Ionic Ray Gun) from
rebooting! Perfect! :-)
Ron
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: | Encoding Altimeter |
Yep...there are a lot of inconsistencies among FSDO folks. There is an
FAA inspector that monitors this site and he stated that the Dynon did
not need to be TSO'd, but simply meet the altitude testing at the
avionics shop to be legal (I'm surprised he has not yet chimed in --
check the archives). That's good enough for me. Also, a local KC FSDO
inspector called the individual on this site and he too now agrees that
the tested Dynon is legal. I'm not trying to argue, but there are
thousands flying with the Dynon encoder and the FAA folks I have queried
stated that the Dynon IS legal. I am also aware that some areas of the
country have met with resistance from avionics shops as well as their
local FAA folks. What gives?
Best regards,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:24 AM
wgill10@comcast.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoding Altimeter
4/22/2008
Hello Bill, Thanks for your input. You wrote:
1) "OR...you could buy a Dynon ........."
Since the Dynon units do not contain a TSO'd altitude encoder operating
the
Dynon unit alone to feed a transponder in flight would presently leave
one
in violation of FAR Sec 91.217 (as interpreted by FAA HQ). There are two
ways to approach this condition:
A) Purchase and install a separate TSO'd altitude encoder and use that
encoder to feed the aircraft's transponder.
B) Decide that violation of 91.217 is an acceptable risk and feed the
transponder from the non TSO'd altitude encoder contained in the Dynon
unit.
2) ".....and save even more during the IFR recertification check."
My local avionics shop charges a flat fee for the FAR Sections 91.411
and
91.413 required testing. This fee has been the same no matter whether I
do
the labor of removing and reinstalling the altimeter and TSO'd altitude
encoder, for bench testing and any adjustments needed prior to the
airplane
side testing, or they do that labor. (By the way, four years ago that
flat
fee was $150, now it is $300.)
3) "........the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their
accuracy and simplicity."
I hope that the avionics shops continue this practice without any regard
for
what FAR Sec 91.217 says.
4) ".......the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their
accuracy and simplicity."
I wonder about the complexity of removing and reinstalling an EFIS from
the
airplane compared to the complexity of removing and reinstalling an
altimeter and separate TSO'd altitude encoder should any bench testing
and
adjusting be needed.
A) Maybe EFIS removal and reinstallation is no big deal, but I envision
a
bunch of connections, particularly if it is the type of EFIS that also
includes displaying engine performance parameters.
B) Maybe the EFIS's have no means of local avionics shop adjustment.
C) Maybe the EFIS's would never need adjustment.
D) What has been the experience of EFIS operators that have actually
been
through FAR 91.411 and 91.413 checks, as appropriate, after flying for
at
least two years?
Would any EFIS owners and operators care to comment on these points?.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
---------------------------------------------------
Time: 09:05:34 PM PST US
From: "William Gill" <wgill10@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter
OR...you could buy a Dynon and save even more during the IFR
recertification check. In fact, the avionics shops actually prefer the
Dynon due to their accuracy and simplicity.
Bill
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Encoding Altimeter |
Good Evening Bill,
Nothing new here except another data point!
Our granddaughter just finished her Texas Star home built kit and had the
altimeter, transponder and altitude for the 430W certified by a local shop from
the area near Sulphur Springs, Texas. He had no compulsion about using the
Dynon and her airplane is now OK for IFR flight as per the requirements as
listed on the appropriate paperwork.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
Do Not Archive
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 4/22/2008 8:40:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
wgill10@comcast.net writes:
Yep...there are a lot of inconsistencies among FSDO folks. There is an
FAA inspector that monitors this site and he stated that the Dynon did
not need to be TSO'd, but simply meet the altitude testing at the
avionics shop to be legal (I'm surprised he has not yet chimed in --
check the archives). That's good enough for me. Also, a local KC FSDO
inspector called the individual on this site and he too now agrees that
the tested Dynon is legal. I'm not trying to argue, but there are
thousands flying with the Dynon encoder and the FAA folks I have queried
stated that the Dynon IS legal. I am also aware that some areas of the
country have met with resistance from avionics shops as well as their
local FAA folks. What gives?
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
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: | ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft |
Thanks for the feedback. I found two options at
http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page14.htm One option is to attach a
surface mount BNC connector, add a simple ground plane over the top and
stick on a rubber duck. The fancy option is $108.00
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Christley
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft
--> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>>
>> Bruce Gray wrote:
>>> <Bruce@glasair.org>
>>>
>>> I could be wrong but I don't think that dipole antennas are around
>>> for 406
>>> MHTZ ELT's yet. They exist for 121.5 ELT's but they will be obsolete
>>> next
>>> year.
>>>
>>
>> You're wrong. Jim Weir's antennae book shows you how to build one
>> that will handle both frequencies.
>>
>> http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/ELTantennae.jpg
I owe Bruce and apology. It's not until I read a later response that
*406 MHz* sunk into my thick skull.
ELT's use two frequencies; neither of which is 406MHz. You have to
build the dipole antennae to handle both of the frequencies, and that is
what I got caught up on. Not that it would be difficult to build a
406MHz dipole, it would just be shorter, but there is very likely little
to no marketed products at the moment.
My sincerest apologies, Bruce.
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
At 01:06 PM 4/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>> ? if your EFIS is already brown-out proof, what's the
>> task for an aux battery?
>
>If I do add an AUX battery, it would be for extended E-bus run time. I
>wouldn't add AUX battery weight for brown out protection alone, unless
>there was something else....
>
>Wait! It would also keep my IIRG (Intergalactic Ionic Ray Gun) from
>rebooting! Perfect! :-)
If you have an SD-8 in addition to the ship's main alternator,
then you essentially enjoy unlimited e-bus endurance irrespective
of the capacity of the ship's battery.
Z-13 lets you run a battery until it doesn't crank the engine
any more. Battery only endurance is not part of the "plan-B".
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions |
At 10:42 AM 4/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>Bob, Very interesting discussion....
>
>We are (were) planning on using Z19RB architecture. Granted, that
>requires 2 full size batteries (17- 20 AH) which we feel would provide
>sufficient backup power in the event of alternator failure, redundant
>power sources for the dual fuel pump and ignition required for the 20b
>Mazda rotory engine and avoids the added expense and complication of the
>extra alternator. To insure good batteries one would be replaced each year.
>
>Our thought was the two batteries would provide adequate power even during
>starts to prevent brownouts and a minimum of one and a half hours battery
>power (with load shedding of course) in the event of an alternator failure.
That's consistent with the processes by which Z-19 was crafted.
Dual alternators is simply not a practical option for many
of the automotive conversions.
>We have not tested this battery endurance yet as the panel is not finished.
You should be able to predict e-bus performance. The
Discharge curves for various battery products are generally
available from the manufacturer. Just keep in mind that
the useful capacity is not consistent with variable loads.
The higher the load, the more energy is lost internal to
the battery. In this family of curves . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
we see that a new 17 a.h. battery is good for
just over 2 hours with a 4 amp load. So about 1.5
hours when time to toss the battery. On the other
hand, a 10A load is good for about 60 minutes. If
one hour is the new-battery design goal, then end
of service life will be at about 45 minutes.
>The brownout relay got me thinking about Z13/8 again....
>Any thoughts????
It's up to you to decide what goodies are operated
during the alternator out operations and then decide
how much payload you're willing to trade for battery-
only endurance with those loads.
In VMC, your other-than-engine loads can probably
be VERY low thus offering more hours of electrical
support than you have fuel support. A set of pre-flight
tested hand-helds can certainly be part of your plan-B
equation.
Being limited to two batteries, one alternator and
a couple of hand-helds doesn't need to present a
worrisome situation.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. |
>
> If you have an SD-8 in addition to the ship's main alternator,
> then you essentially enjoy unlimited e-bus endurance irrespective
> of the capacity of the ship's battery.
>
> Z-13 lets you run a battery until it doesn't crank the engine
> any more. Battery only endurance is not part of the "plan-B".
>
> Bob . . .
>
Understood. Per other thread, I do have an SD-20S for backup ALT, so the
plan C,D,E... AUX battery addition here is not compelling, as you suggest.
However, if I do have to go to the E-bus, perhaps due to a stuck starter,
requiring shutdown of the main contactor even with an alternator still
available, then battery endurance may be an issue, even if not a worry.
Other than that, I might want independent capacity for ground ops (light,
audio, radios, gizmos...) in the boonies with this mini bush plane. Those
are probably the only things that would lead me to commit 6 lbs. (+/-) to an
AUX battery system.
Ron
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! --
|