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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Is this splice acceptable? |
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Grand Rapids EIS & Hall Effect sonsor |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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
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! --
|