---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 04/22/08: 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:28:10 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:01 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:27:28 AM PST US From: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:53:44 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:59:06 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:35:21 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ><lamphere@vabb.com> wrote: >><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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:50:23 AM PST US From: Bret Smith Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:54 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:36:55 AM PST US From: "David & Elaine Lamphere" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 >><lamphere@vabb.com> wrote: >>><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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:36:57 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:36 AM PST US From: D Fritz Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:17 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:59:55 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual alternator single shunt At 11:37 AM 4/22/2008 -0400, you wrote: > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:18:41 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brownout Battery System P.S. From: "grjtucson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:35:04 AM PST US From: "Ron Shannon" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:04 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:57 AM PST US From: "John McMahon" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:39 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ><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 >> >> 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. ? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:14:46 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:10:34 PM PST US From: "Ron Shannon" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:39:05 PM PST US From: "William Gill" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:53 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:49:27 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft From: 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 --> >> >> Bruce Gray wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:17:55 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:14 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:12:05 PM PST US From: "Ron Shannon" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.