AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Fri 07/04/08


Total Messages Posted: 14



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 12:44 AM - Re: Is this splice acceptable? (ianwilson2)
     2. 12:53 AM - Re: Grand Rapids EIS & Hall Effect sonsor (ianwilson2)
     3. 03:25 AM - Re: Endurance bus load (Andrew Butler)
     4. 03:54 AM - Re: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control (Bob-tcw)
     5. 06:43 AM - Re: Endurance bus load (John Morgensen)
     6. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: Is this splice acceptable? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     7. 07:23 AM - Re: Re: Grand Rapids EIS & Hall Effect sonsor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     8. 07:26 AM - Re: Endurance bus load (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     9. 07:34 AM - Re: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    10. 08:53 AM - Re: Problem with 2-70 substitute? (Allen Fulmer)
    11. 01:23 PM - Re: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control (raymondj)
    12. 02:36 PM - Re: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control (Rob Turk)
    13. 05:29 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 07/03/08 (Lee Logan)
    14. 09:26 PM - Strobe shielded wire splice (Carl Peters, M.D.)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 12:44:46 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Is this splice acceptable?
    From: "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2@hotmail.com>
    Thanks Bob for the response. I was going to heat shrink the lot once I was happy it was ok. I did think afterwards that I could have crimped the 2 wires into one spade connector - would that have been a better option? Ian Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=191201#191201


    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
    Time: 12:53:39 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Grand Rapids EIS & Hall Effect sonsor
    From: "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2@hotmail.com>
    Thanks Ken, Bob and yes Brett, the sensor is just short of an inch round so a #2 wire & connector will fit. Bob, if I say that I'm also installing the B&C Over/Under voltage sensor (BC207-1) and my GR EIS also has voltage warnings, would that lead you to a more definite conclusion as to where you would place the sensor? Many thanks for all of your continued help, without which I'd be all at sea! Ian Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=191202#191202


    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
    Time: 03:25:53 AM PST US
    From: "Andrew Butler" <andrewbutler@ireland.com>
    Subject: Re: Endurance bus load
    Hi Bob, I have based my design around the Z13/8 architecture with dual P-Mags. It is still a work in progress. With regards the SD-8 install, what is the difference between version N and O in practical terms i.e. what do the two addtitional resistors do? I have bought the SD-8 (its in a box) and the PM/OV kit from B&C. I don't think the PM/OV kit has these resistors included. Cheers, Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Endurance bus load Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:55:32 -0500 At 12:54 PM 7/3/2008 -0700, you wrote: > > I am starting to wire an RV9A using Z-13/8 and I came up with these loads on the E-Bus: > > Item Continuous Intermittent > AFS-EFIS 2.5 > Trio A/P 1.0 1.0 > Altitude Hold 1.0 1.0 > Garmin x-ponder 1.0 (0.9-1.85) > Garmin SL-40 0.3 3.0 (2.1-3.2) > Trim Servo 0.2 > > This adds up to 5.8 amps continuous and 5.2 intermittent for a total of 11 amps. In practice, > I would not expect all of the intermittent loads to hit at the same time but how do I > configure the E-Bus? > Should the E-bus be powered from the battery bus through a relay and a 10 amp fuse or 15 amp > fuse? Since Z-13/8 has always been designed to support a 10A e-bus load, it probably should have featured the robust alternate feed relay. I've updated Z-13/8 to revision O where I've added the alternate feed relay and self-excitation to the SD-8. The latest drawing is at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8O.pdf > Am I correct in assuming that the SD-8 will charge the battery when the load is less than 8 > amps and the battery will make up the difference when the load is greater than 8 amps? Yes . . . sort of. Actually, if you have a voltmeter on the e-bus, you can load the SD-8 until the bus falls to 13.0 volts. Not enough to charge the battery but too high to discharge the battery. At this condition you can probably get close to 10A out of the SD-8 and hold whatever the battery offers in reserve for approach to landing. And yes, the intermittent loads are not significant to the total energy picture . . . the battery can be tapped for those short intervals without changing the outcome of your experience. Bob . . . =========== =========== =========== ===========


    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
    Time: 03:54:32 AM PST US
    From: "Bob-tcw" <rnewman@tcwtech.com>
    Subject: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control
    Selwyn, As an alternative to a set of relays to drive the flaps and the possibility of conflict between pilot and co-pilot control switches you may want to take a look at a product we offer call: Intelligent Flap Controller, IFC-1. It is very simple to wire, resolves the switch conflicts between pilot and co-pilot and and also provides Vfe protection when used with our airspeed switch. visit www.tcwtech.com and click on IFC-1 for all the details Best regards, Bob Newman TCW Technologies


    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
    Time: 06:43:49 AM PST US
    From: John Morgensen <john@morgensen.com>
    Subject: Re: Endurance bus load
    Thanks Bob! john Do Not Archive Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > Since Z-13/8 has always been designed to support a > 10A e-bus load, it probably should have featured the > robust alternate feed relay. I've updated Z-13/8 to > revision O where I've added the alternate feed relay > and self-excitation to the SD-8. The latest drawing > is at: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8O.pdf > >


    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
    Time: 07:22:47 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Is this splice acceptable?
    At 12:40 AM 7/4/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >Thanks Bob for the response. I was going to heat shrink the lot once I >was happy it was ok. I did think afterwards that I could have crimped the >2 wires into one spade connector - would that have been a better option? It's a constant trade off between what one might call the best-we-know-how-to-do and something that is sure to be a failure issue. If ultimate reliability is your goal, then crimp all three wires together into a single butt splice or solder and heatshrink. If some degree of serviceability is desired, then connectors of some style are in order but then service life goes down. I've seen builders twist such wires together and put a wire-nut on them like you would use in a light fixture on your ceiling. Loss of that joint doesn't represent a great hazard to flight if you've designed a failure tolerant system. So the only thing you need to trade off is the potential inconvenience of having to repair a convenient joint in the future or the inconvenience of dealing with permanent joints when replacing parts. Given that the PM alternators are exceedingly long lived, the butt splice or soldered joints are pretty attractive to me. The choice is yours. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 07:23:53 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Grand Rapids EIS & Hall Effect sonsor
    At 12:50 AM 7/4/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >Thanks Ken, Bob and yes Brett, the sensor is just short of an inch round >so a #2 wire & connector will fit. > >Bob, if I say that I'm also installing the B&C Over/Under voltage sensor >(BC207-1) and my GR EIS also has voltage warnings, would that lead you to >a more definite conclusion as to where you would place the sensor? > >Many thanks for all of your continued help, without which I'd be all at sea! No, such sensors are more useful for troubleshooting than for in-flight operations. If you have active notification of low voltage, then no other instrumentation is all that useful to you as pilot. As a system designer/maintenance technician, may current values throughout the system are useful information. Since you have only one sensor to place, it's a dart-throw. If it were my airplane, I'd put it on the alternator power output lead. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 07:26:55 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Endurance bus load
    At 10:20 AM 7/4/2008 +0000, you wrote: >Hi Bob, > >I have based my design around the Z13/8 architecture with dual P-Mags. It >is still a work in progress. > >With regards the SD-8 install, what is the difference between version N >and O in practical terms i.e. what do the two addtitional resistors do? > >I have bought the SD-8 (its in a box) and the PM/OV kit from B&C. I don't >think the PM/OV kit has these resistors included. > >Cheers, Andrew. The two resistors and a bridge rectifier provide a feature that should be built into all PM regulators for making the system come alive (self-excite) with no battery present. Some regulators may do that . . . I'm not aware of any specific models. It would not be difficult to included self-excitation capabilities in any of the PM regulator products on the market . . . but that's anohter story. So, you may choose to add this feature if you wish but it's not a big deal without it. The e-bus alternate feed boost relay IS recommended. 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
    Time: 07:34:12 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control
    At 05:33 PM 7/3/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >Bob, > >Looking at your flaps3 diagram, does that function with two sets of >stick switches wired in parallel? My reading is that the worst case is >for both relays to be energised which leaves the motor floating with both >leads at 12v and nothing happens until the pilots come to some sort of >agreement. Is that correct because I have this niggle in the back of my >mind which says I am missing something? You can use two sets of command switches in parallel. Conflicting commands only causes the flaps to stop moving . . . no smoke or fire. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 08:53:24 AM PST US
    From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
    Subject: Problem with 2-70 substitute?
    Looking at like it was a Carling worked! Thanks, Bob. >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On >>>Behalf Of Robert >>>L. Nuckolls, III >>>Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:49 PM >>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Problem with 2-70 substitute? >>> >>> >>>Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> >>> >>>At 10:14 PM 7/3/2008 -0500, you wrote: >>><afulmer@charter.net> >>>> >>>>Bob, >>>> >>>>This is a snippet from a May 12th list message: >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------ >>>---------------- >>>>- >>>> A miniature version of the 2-70 is a C&K 7215SYZQ available >>>> from Digikey at: >>>> >>>> >>>http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?n >>>ame=CKN1134-N >>>>D >>>> >>>> Wiring for this switch is illustrated at: >>>> >>>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/3-Ch_Voltmeter.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> Bob . . . >>>>------------------------------------------------------------ >>>---------------- >>>>- >>>> >>>>When you follow that link for the CKN1134-ND you get C&K >>>7215SYZQE (note the >>>>trailing "E") which I ordered from Allied Electronics but >>>it does not appear >>>>to be a "progressive transfer" type of switch. >>> >>> Hmmmm . . . according to the Digikey catalog excerpt at: >>> >>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/CKN1134-7215SYZQE.pdf >>> >>> and CK catalog exerpt at: >>> >>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/7000_18june.pdf >>> >>> the 7215 is indeed a progressive transfer switch. The trailing >>> E means epoxy seal. The magic numbers are 7215 which is momentary >>> both extremes (2-70), 7213 which is momentary one extreme (2-50), >>> and 7211 with no momentary positions (2-10). Note the asterisk >>> on all part numbers of this series referring to supplementary >>> wiring data to make it a 3-way switch. Note also the terminal >>> connection data also highlighted that describes the typical >>> progressive transfer functionality. >>> >>> If the switch you got from Allied is a 7215, then some work >>> with an ohmmeter should confirm or deny the functionality >>> highlighted on the second page of the CK catalog excerpt. >>> >>> Bob . . . >>> >>>>A May 18th post of yours has the following link: >>>> >>>>http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail? >>>name=CKN1495-ND >>>> >>>> >>>>which is a different switch, a 7215TZQE. I hate to order >>>that one if it is >>>>not correct but I can't make out how to tell which one >>>might be "progressive >>>>transfer". >>> >>> This is also a 7215 but with a different handle. >>> >>> >>>>Of course, it could just be that I don't know how to wire >>>it. I have your >>>>drawing titled "3 Ch Progressive Transfer Voltmeter >>>Selector Switch" dated >>>>5/12/08 Rev.A. >>> >>> Hmmm . . . on page 9 of >>> >>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf >>> >>> I show two conventions for switch numbering between Carling >>> and Microswitch. I see that C&K has yet another convention. >>> In the mid position we need connections between 1-2, 5-6 to >>> match the AEC drawings. So, swap the columns. Looking in the >>> back of the switch and keyway up, treat it as if it were a >>> Carling switch numbered as shown in left view and it should >>> work. >>> >>> Bob . . . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>


    Message 11


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:23:04 PM PST US
    From: "raymondj" <raymondj@frontiernet.net>
    Subject: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control
    Greetings, Any thoughts on putting an "off switch" for the controls on the right seat stick? It would prevent accidental activation and could be turned on for the right seat piloting. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst." do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 9:28 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control > <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> > > At 05:33 PM 7/3/2008 -0700, you wrote: >><selwyn@ellisworks.com.au> >> >>Bob, >> >>Looking at your flaps3 diagram, does that function with two sets of >>stick switches wired in parallel? My reading is that the worst case is >>for both relays to be energised which leaves the motor floating with both >>leads at 12v and nothing happens until the pilots come to some sort of >>agreement. Is that correct because I have this niggle in the back of my >>mind which says I am missing something? > > You can use two sets of command switches in parallel. > Conflicting commands only causes the flaps to stop > moving . . . no smoke or fire. > > Bob . . . > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Checked by AVG. 7:02 PM


    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
    Time: 02:36:14 PM PST US
    From: "Rob Turk" <matronics@rtist.nl>
    Subject: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control
    A simple switch in series with the common wire that connects the right stick switches to ground will do just that. Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "raymondj" <raymondj@frontiernet.net> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:18 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control > <raymondj@frontiernet.net> > > Greetings, > > Any thoughts on putting an "off switch" for the controls on the right > seat stick? It would prevent accidental activation and could be turned on > for the right seat piloting. > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > "Hope for the best, > but prepare for the worst." > > do not archive > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 9:28 AM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grip Flap Motor Control > > >> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> >> >> At 05:33 PM 7/3/2008 -0700, you wrote: >>><selwyn@ellisworks.com.au> >>> >>>Bob, >>> >>>Looking at your flaps3 diagram, does that function with two sets of >>>stick switches wired in parallel? My reading is that the worst case is >>>for both relays to be energised which leaves the motor floating with both >>>leads at 12v and nothing happens until the pilots come to some sort of >>>agreement. Is that correct because I have this niggle in the back of my >>>mind which says I am missing something? >> >> You can use two sets of command switches in parallel. >> Conflicting commands only causes the flaps to stop >> moving . . . no smoke or fire. >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Checked by AVG. > 7:02 PM > > >


    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
    Time: 05:29:11 PM PST US
    From: "Lee Logan" <leeloganster@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 07/03/08
    Bob, you made a point yesterday, that I had not thought through. I do not have an electrical/charging/output performance card in my flight test deck. I do of course, have operational performance checks planned on all my avionics, but I don't have a specifice plan for checking out the performance of my "as designed" electrical system (not flying yet). Wonder if you or anyone else can recommend specific flight test procedures to accomplish a reasonable system test in a sequenced and logical form? My system is all electric with a Plane Power 60 amp, internally regulated main alternator, an SD-8 backup, all wired a la Z-13/8 with "auto excitement" of the SD-8. I have an EDM-900C engine monitor with voltage and amperage readings and the B&C BC207-1 over/under voltage sensor (not yet wired up). Any recommendations as to wiring changes that might facilitate the above would also be appreciated. BTW , I don't see over/under voltage detection or indications on schematics for the SD-8 typically. Is the expectation that the BC207-1 will provide adequate early warning of main alternator failure and that then battery and SD-8 power will be adequate for any reasonable endurance bus/fuel remaining scenario---such that further warning that the SD-8 has failed too is considered an unnecessary complication? If the SD-8 failed after the main alternator had already failed on my aircraft, my battery (Odyssey 925) is the final arrow in the quiver. The 925 is a monster though and personally, I would *already* be headed for good weather/divert/home base/whatever if the SD-8 let go. I don't think I need another warning system, but thought I'd ask the group. What's the consensus thinking on this one? Thanks in advance! Lee...


    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
    Time: 09:26:39 PM PST US
    From: "Carl Peters, M.D." <say.ahh1@verizon.net>
    Subject: Strobe shielded wire splice
    My RV-9A wing strobe wires will be a little short in reaching the fuselage mounted power supply. I could buy some longer wires, but I have a spare set that can be used to splice on some extra length. Any problem splicing as per this: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shielded_Wire_Splicing/S_Wire_Splice.html In case I want to have a wing to fuselage strobe wire connector (I know the pros and cons), is there an issue about having the Molex connector unshielded? In this case, do folks just run solder the shield ends to once of the Molex pins? Thanks, Carl




    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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --