Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:18 AM - Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Eric M. Jones)
2. 07:06 AM - Re: Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:24 AM - Re: More advice sought II (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:26 AM - Re: More advice sought II (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:34 AM - Re: Z13/8 wiring correction ? (Jeff Page)
6. 07:38 AM - Re: Switches (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:44 AM - Newbie Z-21A question (Jorge Rodriguez)
8. 07:53 AM - Re: Z13/8 wiring correction ? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:07 AM - Re: Newbie Z-21A question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:49 AM - RV-6A For Sale (Richard Dudley)
11. 10:36 AM - Re: RV-6A For Sale (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 10:40 AM - Male crimp BNCs (Fergus Kyle)
13. 10:43 AM - Re: Ignition cables (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 10:47 AM - Re: IR to ER alternator mod (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 10:53 AM - Re: Male crimp BNCs (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 11:14 AM - Re: RV-6A For Sale (Richard Dudley)
17. 12:20 PM - "primer-line fuel injection" (raymondj)
18. 01:37 PM - Re: "primer-line fuel injection" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 02:44 PM - Re: IR to ER alternator mod ()
20. 04:25 PM - Re: IR to ER alternator mod ()
21. 04:27 PM - Re: Re: IR to ER alternator mod (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 04:32 PM - Re: "primer-line fuel injection" (raymondj)
23. 05:15 PM - Re: Newbie Z-21A question (DaveG601XL)
24. 05:43 PM - Re: The great(?) debate . . . (marcausman)
25. 06:18 PM - Re: Re: Newbie Z-21A question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 08:01 PM - ignition cables (Fergus Kyle)
27. 08:18 PM - Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Ralph Finch)
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: The great(?) debate . . . |
Bob, I'm with you on this.
I have only a limited background in programming microprocessors, so I don't feel
comfortable in coupling them with a systems or aircraft where everything is
tied to a central computer. I certainly do subscribe to distributed microprocessors
all over the place--in instruments, clocks, radios, displays, etc. I even
like one-wire buses.
Some people like computerized check-lists and monitoring the temperature of every
cylinder---automation everywhere. But the hair on the back of my neck stood
straight up when Lance at NSI showed me his engine where there were computers
and backups and backups for the backups for the backups. When has it been said
"that the disaster happened because we didn't have enough automation"? (At Chernobyl,
they turned OFF the computer safety interlocks.)
In my personal aircraft (Glastar 2.00 Turbo Subie N5EJ), It has no central computer,
but if I did, I would need a backup central computer or maybe two, and then
some switch-over dealy-whomper...and I'd have to kidnap a small IT person
for the jumpseat to keep everything in tune. My design uses no central computer(s),
and furthermore only uses microprocessors where they really add to the function.
Good designers can disagree on this, but I am building an airplane that
I will like to fly.
Years ago Aviation Consumer ran a series of articles entitled (something like)
"What is the perfect airplane?... They concluded that a truly miraculous airplane
could be had by this very simple process...
1) Buy a structurally sound but completely flea-bitten woebegone dog held-together-with-duct-tape,
unloved...Cessna 182 . The uglier it is the better.
2) Strip it to the bone...every nut, bolt, screw, bracket, tube, pulley, and every
piece of plastic. Clean up, straighten and paint everything to better than
factory fresh.
3) With the bushels of moneyyou saved, drop in a 1/4" windscreen, the very best
seats, instruments, engine and props, flap and gap seals and the best speed mods
that LoPresti Speed Merchants (now isn't that a great company name!) can produce.
Get the autogas STC too.
What will you wind up with?....a magnificent flying machine that will handily outperform
any stock C182, will go 200 mph on 7 gallons-per-hour (or so), will
lift a full load of solid neutronium (or gold-pressed latinum bricks) off short
runways...in quiet comfort, luxury and will sell for three times what you paid.
It will be done in six months AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK.
"...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
and cornbread; nothing else...."
--Will Rogers
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193896#193896
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: The great(?) debate . . . |
At 05:14 AM 7/20/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bob, I'm with you on this.
>
>I have only a limited background in programming microprocessors, so I
>don't feel comfortable in coupling them with a systems or aircraft where
>everything is tied to a central computer. I certainly do subscribe to
>distributed microprocessors all over the place--in instruments, clocks,
>radios, displays, etc. I even like one-wire buses.
Yes, I believe I was instrumental in getting the first
CAN-Bus onto a certified aircraft about 10 years ago.
We used CAN to interconnect a suite of smart flap
actuators on the Eclipse. When I proposed CAN for
some projects I've been privileged to work on, it
was immediately embraced by the software guys we
were teamed with, "Yeah, we've been really happy
with that technology, use it all the time."
CAN was developed by Bosch with an eye on the
ground transportation market. It was sucked
into the textile industry big-time as a solution for
implementing distributed processing on large
looms, and it's been growing like a weed since.
It's simple, easy to implement and just about
everybody offers one or more microcontrollers
with a CAN engine on the chip.
>Some people like computerized check-lists and monitoring the temperature
>of every cylinder---automation everywhere. But the hair on the back of my
>neck stood straight up when Lance at NSI showed me his engine where there
>were computers and backups and backups for the backups for the backups.
>When has it been said "that the disaster happened because we didn't have
>enough automation"? (At Chernobyl, they turned OFF the computer safety
>interlocks.)
It's easy to get sucked into the notion that
since computers can do so much more than the
humble gray matter and do it faster, that we
can do ourselves a service by letting them
take on more and more of our responsibilities.
But they are just tools. Unthinking, unfeeling,
unimaginative tools that are not self healing
and not educable. They do not learn from their
mistakes and they break.
I've used and proposed a lot of them in new products
to reduce parts count, improve on capability of
the appliance to help humans own, operate and
maintain their machines. But I'm exceedingly
cautious of handing off any form of essential
responsibility to them. Our colleagues are
equally skeptical, hence the evolution of DO-178
software development and testing rules. I am
equally cautious of using them to ADD to the
ability to do things that we've not found necessary
or useful to do in the 100 year history of
airplanes.
By the same line of reasoning, I'm not automatically
on the wagon with those who imagine, develop and
market do-everything products just because they
can. Once the product exists they're saddled
with a need to market that product. When there no
convincing operational and cost-of-ownership
incentives arise for folks considering the product,
they must resort to the oldest selling hammers
in the book. Capitalize on the ignorance
and fears of the consumer by invoking the
gods of safety, reliability and of course
convenience.
>In my personal aircraft (Glastar 2.00 Turbo Subie N5EJ), It has no central
>computer, but if I did, I would need a backup central computer or maybe
>two, and then some switch-over dealy-whomper...and I'd have to kidnap a
>small IT person for the jumpseat to keep everything in tune. My design
>uses no central computer(s), and furthermore only uses microprocessors
>where they really add to the function. Good designers can disagree on
>this, but I am building an airplane that I will like to fly.
When I saw NSI's fully redundant, twin EFI
system schematics, I was similarly disposed to
avoid getting involved in the program. I suggested
that having ONE really capable EFI system backed
up with a stone simple, non-electronic way to
keep the engine running was preferable, less expensive,
lighter, etc, etc. Some years back, a few folks
installed my suggested "primer-line fuel injection"
on their airplanes to back up the carburetor. One
reader wrote later that he used it to get back on
the ground comfortably after a fuel selector valve froze up.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/All-Elect-Fuel.jpg
My personal design goals call for the back up
system to be simpler, stand-alone alternatives
to the bells-and-whistles that are interdependent
on each other . . . things that break.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
>Years ago Aviation Consumer ran a series of articles entitled (something
>like) "What is the perfect airplane?... They concluded that a truly
>miraculous airplane could be had by this very simple process...
>
>1) Buy a structurally sound but completely flea-bitten woebegone
>dog held-together-with-duct-tape, unloved...Cessna 182 . The uglier it
>is the better.
I know a guy in Harper that owns that airplane! He
makes a ton of money with it photographing field
conditions for the department of agriculture. Airplane
looks like crap but flies hundreds of hours a year
at a very reasonable cost of ownership.
>2) Strip it to the bone...every nut, bolt, screw, bracket, tube, pulley,
>and every piece of plastic. Clean up, straighten and paint everything to
>better than factory fresh.
>
>3) With the bushels of moneyyou saved, drop in a 1/4" windscreen, the very
>best seats, instruments, engine and props, flap and gap seals and the best
>speed mods that LoPresti Speed Merchants (now isn't that a great company
>name!) can produce. Get the autogas STC too.
>
>What will you wind up with?....a magnificent flying machine that will
>handily outperform any stock C182, will go 200 mph on 7 gallons-per-hour
>(or so), will lift a full load of solid neutronium (or gold-pressed
>latinum bricks) off short runways...in quiet comfort, luxury and will sell
>for three times what you paid. It will be done in six months AND YOU WON'T
>HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK.
Exactly. I think the vast majority of small airplane
owners possess these money-pits because of the
opportunity it affords to DO SOMETHING that very
few others choose to do. If somebody offered me
an airplane that you climb into, program a destination
and push the go-button, I wouldn't be the least
interested at any price.
I would prefer that Pacer because it's a product
of my imagination and efforts to achieve a degree
of utility and freedom that few experience and
enjoy. There are folks that look at me with a
skeptical expression and ask, "You ENJOY getting
into that uncomfortable, noisy, expensive, un-forgiving
machine and going somewhere?" Yes I do. Others
get off on sky diving, snow boarding, speed boats,
etc. But I like airplanes.
About 15 years ago there was a company that made
a pretty good business out of buying up select models
of Cherokee, stripping them down to the structure.
Re-prime, repaint, new seats, new panel, fresh
engine. They could offer an as-new machine
with modern electrics for a fraction of the
cost of a new one and it flew just as good.
> "...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
> Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
> Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
> and cornbread; nothing else...."
> --Will Rogers
A couple of nicely pickled jalapenos would be
nice . . . but as Mr Rogers would no doubt
observe, not essential.
Bob . . .
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: More advice sought II |
At 10:47 PM 7/19/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Hey,
> Perhaps I should clarify my request:
> I have the male BNC crimp connectors and I have the applicable
>crimpers. What is missing is the dimensions of the cuts for the centre wire,
>the internal insulation, the coaxial shield and the cover. It's the
>instructions I need.
. . . or I need to clean my glasses! Here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/RG400_BNC_Trim.jpg
The exposures for shield, inner insulation and center
conductor are 8mm, 4mm, 3mm respectively.
These are set for you automatically by the three-blade
strippers cited earlier but you can do it with an
sharp Swiss Army knife too!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: More advice sought II |
At 08:23 PM 7/19/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
I need to update that article. When I was doing it all
by hand, I choose to trim the excess braid after the
connector was crimped on. The three-blade strippers
make this task MUCH faster and neater.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: Z13/8 wiring correction ? |
Bob,
Although I can display the document, I cannot save it. I suspect
there is a PDF flag that was incorrectly set when you produced the PDF.
Jeff Page
> I've fixed the error you've cited and published the new drawing at:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.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 |
|
At 05:33 PM 7/19/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi, i know this has just been a subject but i have some switches that are
>not marked the same as Bob's book. no #s on the pins. I believe they are
>10-20 & 10-50 but not sure. there are no pin #s on them and Bob's drawings
>are totally different. Help! Jack, Glasair IIS-FT in
They are either Microswitch-like or Carling-like as
illustrated in the figure on page 9 of:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf
Put the switch in mid position, keyway up and look
for continuity between MIDDLE and LOWER terminals on
each side. If the right-side terminals are connected,
then those are your 1-2 terminals and the switch
operates like a Microswitch. If the left-side terminals
are connected, then the switch operates like the older
Carlings and the other figure applies.
If you purchased the switches recently, then based on
what we're hearing from users in the field, the
Microswich-like numbering seems the likely answer to
your question . . . but a simple ohmmeter check will confirm.
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: | Newbie Z-21A question |
Hi. I'm new to this list and am no electrical expert. I am about to get
started on the electrical system for my Jabiru 3300 Sonex, and I've been
studying all of the material in the Connection web site. I have the
following questions about the Z-21A diagram. In the diagram the wires out
of the alternator are wired to a Diode Bridge but nothing is wired to the
Power Load (+). What is this Diode Bridge for? Also the Voltage
Rectifier/Regulator in my jabiru engine has an extra positive (yellow)
wire. Where in this diagram can I connect this wire? In a couple of places
I see squigully lines with labeles like 1K, 3w and 3K, 3W, are these
resistors? Are they really needed? What for?
Thank you all for any help.
Regards,
Jorge Rodriguez
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: Z13/8 wiring correction ? |
At 10:31 AM 7/20/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>Although I can display the document, I cannot save it. I suspect
>there is a PDF flag that was incorrectly set when you produced the PDF.
>Jeff Page
>
>> I've fixed the error you've cited and published the new drawing at:
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf
>
It's the same settings I've used since day-one. The only
flags I have to remember to set each time I upload a file
to the server is to make them executable by all.
My ftp program doesn't do that automatically. I just
downloaded the file and saved it both through the browser
'save page as' and Adobe's file save tag.
Try right-clicking the link in your browser and telling
it where to store the file as opposed to opening directly
from the browser.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: Newbie Z-21A question |
At 10:41 AM 7/20/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi. I'm new to this list and am no electrical expert. I am about to get
>started on the electrical system for my Jabiru 3300 Sonex, and I've been
>studying all of the material in the Connection web site. I have the
>following questions about the Z-21A diagram. In the diagram the wires out
>of the alternator are wired to a Diode Bridge but nothing is wired to the
>Power Load (+). What is this Diode Bridge for? Also the Voltage
>Rectifier/Regulator in my jabiru engine has an extra positive (yellow)
>wire. Where in this diagram can I connect this wire? In a couple of
>places I see squigully lines with labeles like 1K, 3w and 3K, 3W, are
>these resistors? Are they really needed? What for?
Note 25 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11M.pdf
speaks to this question:
--------------------------
Note 25. Making the SD-8 Come-Alive without a
battery:
Subsequent to some excellent 'skunk werks' efforts
on the part of Jim McCulley, the 'Connection is pleased to
offer a work-around to older SD-8 alternator installations
that encourages this useful product to come on line without
benefit of a battery. Adding a pair of diodes and a start-up
bias resistor as shown in Z-25, the SD-8 will come up and
run as soon as the engine is started.
I've suggested the diode bridge rectifier for this application
but you can use wired-leaded devices like 1N5400 series
devices from Radio Shack and others. The advantage of the
diode-bridge is that splices between dynamo and regulator
lead wires can happen in the same PIDG terminals used to
wire the rectifier.
Suitable parts include the following Digikey catalog
numbers:
1 each 1GBPC1204/1 Diode Bridge
1 each ALSR3F1.0K 1,000 Ohm/3W
1 each ALSR3F3.0K 3,000 Ohm/3W
2 each 1N5400 3A, 50V Diode Rectifier
These parts are chosen more for their mechanical
configuration and robustness than for electrical ratings.
Many other styles of parts may be substituted. With these
added parts, one may connect a voltmeter across the 22,000
uFd filter capacitor. A few seconds after the engine is
started, one should observe that the voltage across the
capacitor jumps up to about 6 volts at engine idle. The
voltage rises with RPM until the regulator takes over to
maintain output at about 14.2 volts at cruise RPM.
----------------------
I don't recall now the rationale for applying this
technique to the Jabiru drawings. The ability of the
PM alternator to come on line without a battery is
a function of RECTIFIER/REGULATOR design. We know
that regulators supplied with the SD-8 have not
exhibit this ability in the past and adding the
resistors and diodes cited above are a reasonable
approach to making the system work without a
battery.
However, I don't recall if we had specific information
about the rectifier/regulator supplied/recommended
for use with Jabiru's PM alternators. For now, leave
the parts cited off. See how your particular alternator-
rectifier/regulator behaves and then get back with us
on the List if you determine that it will not come
up without a battery and you would like for it to
have that feature.
This is not a big deal worthy of your concerns right
now, let's take this up in the future after you've
slain all the dragons.
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 |
|
Listers,
A combination of health and financial factors have forced our decision
to sell our beloved airplane. If you are seriously looking for a
beautiful, well-equipped and flying RV-6A read the description below.
RV-6A FOR SALE
Completed 2005 Total time <140 hrs
O-320-D1A Total time since new <140 hrs
Hartzell C/S Prop total time since new <140 hrs
Slider
Great paint
Garmin GNS 430 nav/com
SL-30 nav/com
Garmin GTX 327 Transponder
Garmin GMA 340 Audio panel
Dual CDI
IFR panel, heated pitot
Dual Duckworks landing/taxi lights with Wig-Wag
S-Tech System 20 auto pilot
New main tires
Always hangared
March 2008 annual
Asking: :$100K
Serious buyers contact me for photos and more details off line at:
rhdudley1@bellsouth.net
Richard Dudley
Orlando, FL
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: RV-6A For Sale |
At 12:45 PM 7/20/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Listers,
>
>A combination of health and financial factors have forced our decision to
>sell our beloved airplane. If you are seriously looking for a beautiful,
>well-equipped and flying RV-6A read the description below.
Sorry to hear this my friend . . . for two reasons:
That you've had to toss in the towel give up
on what had to be an exciting and rewarding
experience . . .
and the reminder that we are all mortals and will
have to make similar decisions at some point in
our lives.
I sure that all of us on the List wish you well
and hope that you'll be able to keep at least
one foot in OBAM aviation . . . you won't find
a better bunch of folks to hang around with.
Pass the word guys. Let's see if we can help
Richard sell his airplane. Richard, it might
be too late or impossible right now . . . but
having the airplane on the flight line at
OSH with a "for sale" sign on the prop would be
a powerful marketplace.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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 |
|
Bob N,
I need counseling. I clearly missed your article on the assembly of
the subject item....
My apologies for taking your time. As you stated earlier, it's all described
in:
"Installation of Coax Connectors with RCT2 crimp Tool"
Much obliged!
Ferg
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: Ignition cables |
At 09:19 AM 7/19/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Bob N:
> I have a Rotax 914, which among other things reveals a pair of
>ignition wires terminated in female bullet connectors. I have read
>discussions regarding Radio Magnetic Interference and must route these to
>switches such that I can disconnect them at the firewall for instrument
>panel removal and engine removal both.
> In view of the engine bullet connections, I opted to relay the wires
>in RG400, using BNC connectors at both sides of the firewall - two double
>female BNC bulkhead, on 1/32" stainless steel mini-panel through the
>firewall. The choice then became which BNC males would I use for the f/w
>contacts. I opted for male BNC crimp connectors - for ease of installation
>on RG400 and easy disconnect either side. Using solder models seemed a
>painful exercise in view of the fidgety steps required, (ham radio
>experience here). The cabin side will continue in RG400 to Ignition switches
>on the instrument panel.
> The Europa instrument panel is minimal and proper distance 'twixt
>ignition wires and others dictated a thorough braid grounding, at the bullet
>end to the engine casting and (following manufacturer's instructions) at the
>earthing end of the ignition switches to achieve proper shorting for safety.
>All connectors will be buttressed by heatshrink for security and to
>forestall unprogrammed shorts or broken wires - both of which are safety
>considerations.
> Never having had connection problems with BNCs over 30 years, I
>thought I had chosen well, but I'm a flyer not a builder so beg confirmation
>that my thinking is correct.
> Should I box in the switches electrically to continue shielding all
>the way to the finger point, or is the interference minimal at that point in
>your estimation? I hesitate to add another last minute mod to the many
>already waiting to spring..........
> Your sage guidance ( and perhaps of others) greatly appreciated -
>when you have time...
I think you've made this much too complicated my friend. The 914's
ignition wiring is no more "ugly" with respect to noise and
installation imperatives than our beloved mags . . . and probably
even less so.
The "bullet" connectors are more problematic than the kind
of wire you use. These are large area, low pressure connections
not unlike our glass-cartridge fuse holders of yesteryear.
Knife splices under heat-shrink are much more aircraft-friendly.
You could run an ordinary twisted pair of 20AWG wires to the
switches on the panel but at most, ordinary shielded wire treated
at the ends with techniques described in
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
would be entirely sufficient to your task. You could put
rings or fast-ons on one end for the switch and knife-
splices on the other end to connect to the engine.
I'd save that RG400 for those magical radio signals
that truly benefit from the capabilities of high quality
coaxial cable.
Bob . . .
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
At 12:21 PM 7/19/2008 -0400, you wrote:
><mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>Here is another IR to ER alternator mod.
>
>I would appreciate your evaluation and comments as I may use this method.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Roger
>
>
>http://www.falco.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemi
>d=72
I'm not in a position to comb it for details but the
concept is solid and if the writer has made no errors,
it will work as advertised. I'm not hard over on removing
the built in regulators. As a rule, these are perfectly
satisfactory pieces of electronics. So if your thinking
runs more in line with Plane Power's approach to adapting
the IR alternator (and as suggested in the earlier mod
article) I sure wouldn't have any heartburn over it.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Male crimp BNCs |
At 01:38 PM 7/20/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Bob N,
> I need counseling. I clearly missed your article on the assembly of
>the subject item....
>My apologies for taking your time. As you stated earlier, it's all described
>in:
>"Installation of Coax Connectors with RCT2 crimp Tool"
> Much obliged!
Yeah, sort of. Note the differences between technique proffered
in the article and those suggested by the trimming results
produced by the three-blade stripper.
The article leaves the shield wires too long until after
the connector is installed because I found it easier to
trim the fuzzies afterward. The 3-blade tool does all
the dimensioning in one cut. So there is a difference
albeit a minor one.
However if you're wrestling with connectors and RG400
for your ignition wiring, I think you may be suffering
from a bit of overkill in the application of coax. See
my posting of a few minutes ago.
Bob . . .
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RV-6A For Sale |
Thanks, Bob for your response!
It is a heart wrenching decision, but the only reasonable/rational decision
for us at this time. Advancing age and financial obligations dictate this.
No doubt, there were better times in the not too distant past for selling an
aircraft. We'll see how this unfolds.
This airplane uses your Z-11 design with only slight modification, one of
your versions of Wig-Wag design, your external power design, Aeroelectric or
B & C switches, ground forest of tabs, contactors, alternator and regulator,
dimmer, fuse blocks and a variety of ideas and recommendations for
interconnections, faston tabs, wire labeling and so on. The building and
flying this airplane has been a great learning experience and pleasure. This
goes for two people: myself and my wife of 52 years who became a competent
riveter working both ends of the rivet.
Best regards,
Richard and Ruth Dudley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RV-6A For Sale
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 12:45 PM 7/20/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Listers,
>>
>>A combination of health and financial factors have forced our decision to
>>sell our beloved airplane. If you are seriously looking for a beautiful,
>>well-equipped and flying RV-6A read the description below.
>
>
> Sorry to hear this my friend . . . for two reasons:
>
> That you've had to toss in the towel give up
> on what had to be an exciting and rewarding
> experience . . .
>
> and the reminder that we are all mortals and will
> have to make similar decisions at some point in
> our lives.
>
> I sure that all of us on the List wish you well
> and hope that you'll be able to keep at least
> one foot in OBAM aviation . . . you won't find
> a better bunch of folks to hang around with.
>
> Pass the word guys. Let's see if we can help
> Richard sell his airplane. Richard, it might
> be too late or impossible right now . . . but
> having the airplane on the flight line at
> OSH with a "for sale" sign on the prop would be
> a powerful marketplace.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | "primer-line fuel injection" |
Greetings Bob,
I'm very interested in any other info you have available on this system.
I have decided to put a primer in my engine even thou the carb I will be
using will have an "accelerator" pump. One of my fellow students when I was
getting my PP was able to keep his airplane in the air for approx 15 min. by
pumping the primer until the primary fuel system started working again. I'm
convinced of the value of a primer as a redundant fuel system and yours in
the only design I've seen that could be called a system to make use of it.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The great(?) debate . . .
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
> Some years back, a few folks
> installed my suggested "primer-line fuel injection"
> on their airplanes to back up the carburetor. One
> reader wrote later that he used it to get back on
> the ground comfortably after a fuel selector valve froze up.
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/All-Elect-Fuel.jpg
>
> My personal design goals call for the back up
> system to be simpler, stand-alone alternatives
> to the bells-and-whistles that are interdependent
> on each other . . . things that break.
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: "primer-line fuel injection" |
At 02:16 PM 7/20/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Greetings Bob,
>
> I'm very interested in any other info you have available on this
> system. I have decided to put a primer in my engine even thou the carb I
> will be using will have an "accelerator" pump. One of my fellow students
> when I was getting my PP was able to keep his airplane in the air for
> approx 15 min. by pumping the primer until the primary fuel system
> started working again. I'm convinced of the value of a primer as a
> redundant fuel system and yours in the only design I've seen that could
> be called a system to make use of it.
I think I published the story behind this idea but
it's been some time. It's probably worth repeating.
If you consider the "fuel injection" delivery systems
offered on GA aircraft engines for 70 years or more,
they are little more than precision orifices located outside
each intake valves and pressured up with fuel at some
value set by the mixture control.
The Beech Skipper I learned to fly in had a primer system
pressured up by the electric boost pump and controlled by
a normally closed electric valve that could be opened
by pushing in on the key while cranking the engine. Given
that Pug Piper was doing some work for Beech on the Skipper
after retiring from Piper, it would not surprise me that
this same primer system was first used on some model of
Piper.
Consider also the numbers of dark-n-stormy night stories
we've read over the decades wherein the pilot lives to tell
the tale of bringing an airplane to damage-free arrival
by stroking a primer pump after the primary fuel delivery
system fails . . . for what ever reason.
Okay, combine these three demonstrable experiments with
the notion that one can fit an engine with a 4-port
(or 6 if you have a BIG honker engine) primer system.
Assume further that you put a needle valve in an
electrically pressurized and controlled fuel source
that is adjusted for say 5 GPH of fuel flow (or whatever
suits you best). It should probably be a value in the 60%
range so that you minimize potential for damaging the
engine with a too-lean setting on one cylinder . . . but
enough power to keep you airborne. But if you get really
serious about this, you could plug your primer port fittings
and re-drill them to achieve 1/4 desired fuel flow per
port at the pressure setting of your primer pump.
Now, if you open up the primer system and pull the mixture
to idle cutoff (or the primary fuel supply is cut off
for other reasons), the throttle now becomes your mixture
control. Adjust throttle for maximum smoothness of engine
operation.
Now you have a totally redundant way to deliver much desired
fuel to a starving engine using a collection of ideas
and hardware that have been proven to perform in this task
for decades.
The sketch I showed you was for an all-electric system that
had no valves. Have a dedicated feed from left tank to primer
system. Another dedicated outlet from left tank goes to
a transfer pump that feeds the right tank. A dedicated feed
from the right tank feeds the engine. No valves, minimize
numbers of fittings. No check valves needed other than those
already built into the pumps.
One could craft a variety of fuel management systems.
I proposed one to a builder years ago that we put a low
liquid level sensor in the right tank and use it to
cross feed fuel to maintain the right tank at 1/2
full. Put low liquid level warning sensors on both
tanks when either one drops to say 1/3. When the low
fuel warning on left tank comes on, change automatic
transfer sensing on right tank from 1/2 full to
the low warning level. This will keep the right tank
at the 1/3 level until left tank is empty . . . or
one might choose to hold the left tank totally in
reserve thus keeping the standby fuel delivery system
wet at the tank end.
There are a variety of variations on this theme but
the design goal is to replace mechanical selector
valves with solid state pumps that have very few
moving parts. Further, failure of any one pump does
not put the outcome of the flight at risk because
of the dual, albeit crude second delivery system.
Bob . . .
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
Roger: I have seen that back a few years ago and
studied it. I even talked by email to the Gent.
He does a great job of documenting with text and pics
the mod and explaining background info.
I particularly like the "A" version where you control the
field on the ground side. The mod is clearly very very
easy. The "B" type mod is more involved and I really
think the brush holder modification looks a little delicate,
but if done carefully it should be reliable.
The "A" mod is a thing of beauty, but the down side of
the "A" controlled field is the following:
If you short out your field wire it will go full tilt boogie.
Of course protecting the field wire with insulation and
proper routing support is not hard. You can make it
almost short proof and reliable. The second drawback
is "A" type external voltage regulators are much less
common. I found a couple that are in current
production. However my favorite external VR is the "B"
type Transpo V1200, fully digital OV and fault protected
voltage regulator for about $75. (avail by order at most
commercial auto elect shops). It is made for heavy duty
Ford vehicles like an ambulance.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
Unfortunately the V1200 is a "B" type controller varies
the positive side of the field to control the alternator's
output.
If you want an "A" type, one model off the top of my
head os for a SEADOO (yes SEADOO):
Voltage Set Point: 14.5 V Regulation: A-Circuit
Transpo #: 4229-124
SEADOO #: 27800-1241, 27800-1554
http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/4229124.jpg
There are other "A" type but like this one and you could
utilize the automotive/sealed connectors.
Good luck, personally the internal regulator has thermal
protection and an IC micro processor which offers way
more protection. Also there are no DIY home-brew
solder joints. Keep the internal regulator, supply cooling
air to it, never turn the alternator ON/OFF while the
engine is running (ie turn it on before start and off after
shutdown as it was designed) and your chance of
problems will be very low. (PS, no crow bar)
There are stock ND's that have well over 1000 hours on them.
I do recommend you proactively changing brushes at
750 hours +/- 250 hours. They are cheap and easy to replace.
Low humidity at altitude is hard on the brushes verses car use.
Also we tend to run more avg output than a car in a hot cowl
on a shaking engine, more severe than most cars.
Also don't buy lousy rebuilds and lousy clone alternators.
There are good vendors and bad ones. If you go with
PlanePower or even Van (now they are using a better
aftermarket vendor) you should be fine.
If you are doing all this because you are worried that your
internal regulator will go insane and melt your electical
system down, you are worrying too much. That story is
way over blown and very rare. In the cases where damage was
done the pilot did a few things to make it happen. Most
failures of ND type alternator are usually not OV but
they just stop working. When they do lose stable voltage
regulation they generally top out in the 16-17 volt range. Most
modern avionics can work on 10-30 volts all day long.
In the event of say an unstable regulator, lower RPM,
increase load (landing lights) and ideally you have a
pull-able CB in the panel for you B-lead, pull CB, reduce
elect load & land. No fear no dark and stormy night.
Also IR gives you a LO/Hi volt and fault warning light.
Cheers George
>From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: IR to ER alternator mod
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Here is another IR to ER alternator mod.
>
>I would appreciate your evaluation and comments as I may use this
>method.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Roger
http://www.falco.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=72
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
I forgot about Chrysler, who do make some "A" type regulators. This one has adjustable
voltage.
Voltage Set Point: 14.3V; Regulation: A-Circuit
Special Heavy Duty Version of C8312
Solid State Circuit
Superior Loading
Adjustable Voltage
For 7A Rotors
FOR USE ON: Chrysler Products
Transpo part # C8312
CHRYSLER Part #'s (x-reference)
3 438 150
3 755 850
3 755 960
3 874 520
4 091 050
4 111 990
Of course not many external regulators include any over type relay. I recommend
power the regulator through one of these (I like it better than the Crow Bar
short CB short method.)
http://www.periheliondesign.com/lovm.htm
All the best. George
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
At 02:39 PM 7/20/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>Roger: I have seen that back a few years ago and
>studied it. I even talked by email to the Gent.
<snip>
>
>If you are doing all this because you are worried that your
>internal regulator will go insane and melt your electical
>system down, you are worrying too much. That story is
>way over blown and very rare.
Over blown? Is that between humongous and gargantuan
or just under bodacious . . . I forget.
But even your words "very rare" says the risk is
not zero.
> In the cases where damage was
>done the pilot did a few things to make it happen.
George, go away. You have ZERO evidence of
that and your accusation is uncalled for.
The evidence contrary to that statement is
solid and inarguable which makes your statement
tantamount to calling goodly numbers of folks
liars.
> Most
>failures of ND type alternator are usually not OV but
>they just stop working. When they do lose stable voltage
>regulation they generally top out in the 16-17 volt range.
Maybe . . . but again, are you ready to offer
100% coverage insurance for the ones that are not
"generally" topping out at 17V?
> Most
>modern avionics can work on 10-30 volts all day long.
But batteries don't. Lights don't. Contactors don't
and how many OBAM aircraft are fitted only with
"modern" avionics . . . and exactly when does "modern"
kick in? 1985? 1996?
>
>In the event of say an unstable regulator, lower RPM,
Okay, a fully fielded ND puts out full rated current
at about 4500 shaft RPM. When running at cruise
(2500 on engine) the alternator is spinning at about
4x that. So if we want to get the alternator to be
current limited to say 20A, we need to get it down to
about 1500 RPM which puts the engine at less than
idle. What kind of emergency operations procedure
is that?
>
>increase load (landing lights) and ideally you have a
>pull-able CB in the panel for you B-lead, pull CB, reduce
>elect load & land. No fear no dark and stormy night.
But assuming that you can pull a b-lead breaker
and bring the power back up, the alternator self-
destructs.
Your advice is horse-hockey by the bucket-full
George. Go away.
>Also IR gives you a LO/Hi volt and fault warning light.
Which is only a warning light as far as anyone can
deduce from the lack of schematics to substantiate
any claims to the contrary. It does nothing to
actively shut down an alternator being driven by
a failed regulator.
. . . and oh yes, if the designers included ov warning
in their product, could it be that they also believe
the risk for their product to malfunction is not zero?
. . . or do you think they included that feature just
to placate me?
Go away George. I will not have you trolling this
List for acolytes in the Cult of the Infallible ND.
Go start your own List.
Bob . . .
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: "primer-line fuel injection" |
What can I say? Thanks AGAIN for another valuable bit of education.
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: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "primer-line fuel injection"
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 02:16 PM 7/20/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>><raymondj@frontiernet.net>
>>
>>Greetings Bob,
>>
>> I'm very interested in any other info you have available on this
>> system. I have decided to put a primer in my engine even thou the carb I
>> will be using will have an "accelerator" pump. One of my fellow students
>> when I was getting my PP was able to keep his airplane in the air for
>> approx 15 min. by pumping the primer until the primary fuel system
>> started working again. I'm convinced of the value of a primer as a
>> redundant fuel system and yours in the only design I've seen that could
>> be called a system to make use of it.
>
> I think I published the story behind this idea but
> it's been some time. It's probably worth repeating.
>
> If you consider the "fuel injection" delivery systems
> offered on GA aircraft engines for 70 years or more,
> they are little more than precision orifices located outside
> each intake valves and pressured up with fuel at some
> value set by the mixture control.
>
> The Beech Skipper I learned to fly in had a primer system
> pressured up by the electric boost pump and controlled by
> a normally closed electric valve that could be opened
> by pushing in on the key while cranking the engine. Given
> that Pug Piper was doing some work for Beech on the Skipper
> after retiring from Piper, it would not surprise me that
> this same primer system was first used on some model of
> Piper.
>
> Consider also the numbers of dark-n-stormy night stories
> we've read over the decades wherein the pilot lives to tell
> the tale of bringing an airplane to damage-free arrival
> by stroking a primer pump after the primary fuel delivery
> system fails . . . for what ever reason.
>
> Okay, combine these three demonstrable experiments with
> the notion that one can fit an engine with a 4-port
> (or 6 if you have a BIG honker engine) primer system.
> Assume further that you put a needle valve in an
> electrically pressurized and controlled fuel source
> that is adjusted for say 5 GPH of fuel flow (or whatever
> suits you best). It should probably be a value in the 60%
> range so that you minimize potential for damaging the
> engine with a too-lean setting on one cylinder . . . but
> enough power to keep you airborne. But if you get really
> serious about this, you could plug your primer port fittings
> and re-drill them to achieve 1/4 desired fuel flow per
> port at the pressure setting of your primer pump.
>
> Now, if you open up the primer system and pull the mixture
> to idle cutoff (or the primary fuel supply is cut off
> for other reasons), the throttle now becomes your mixture
> control. Adjust throttle for maximum smoothness of engine
> operation.
>
> Now you have a totally redundant way to deliver much desired
> fuel to a starving engine using a collection of ideas
> and hardware that have been proven to perform in this task
> for decades.
>
> The sketch I showed you was for an all-electric system that
> had no valves. Have a dedicated feed from left tank to primer
> system. Another dedicated outlet from left tank goes to
> a transfer pump that feeds the right tank. A dedicated feed
> from the right tank feeds the engine. No valves, minimize
> numbers of fittings. No check valves needed other than those
> already built into the pumps.
>
> One could craft a variety of fuel management systems.
> I proposed one to a builder years ago that we put a low
> liquid level sensor in the right tank and use it to
> cross feed fuel to maintain the right tank at 1/2
> full. Put low liquid level warning sensors on both
> tanks when either one drops to say 1/3. When the low
> fuel warning on left tank comes on, change automatic
> transfer sensing on right tank from 1/2 full to
> the low warning level. This will keep the right tank
> at the 1/3 level until left tank is empty . . . or
> one might choose to hold the left tank totally in
> reserve thus keeping the standby fuel delivery system
> wet at the tank end.
>
> There are a variety of variations on this theme but
> the design goal is to replace mechanical selector
> valves with solid state pumps that have very few
> moving parts. Further, failure of any one pump does
> not put the outcome of the flight at risk because
> of the dual, albeit crude second delivery system.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> 270.5.2/1562 - Release Date: 7/19/2008 2:01 PM
>
>
>
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Newbie Z-21A question |
Jorge,
The yellow wire is a voltage sense line. Tie it in with your red output wire.
It needs to see what the output voltage of that line is in order for the regulator
to do its job.
Good Luck,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, ready to fly.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194022#194022
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
Some people are innovators and some are laggards. Both types are fine, just decide
which you are while building your plane. :D
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194030#194030
Message 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Newbie Z-21A question |
At 05:11 PM 7/20/2008 -0700, you wrote:
><david.m.gallagher@ge.com>
>
>Jorge,
>
>The yellow wire is a voltage sense line. Tie it in with your red output
>wire. It needs to see what the output voltage of that line is in order
>for the regulator to do its job.
Dave, the last wiring diagram I saw for the 3300
was this thing gleaned from the installation/instruction
manual.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Jabiru_3300_Alternator_Wiring.jpg
Is there something more up to date available? This
first cut at it was exceedingly unhelpful and doesn't
have a yellow wire.
Bob . . .
Message 26
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 |
|
Bob N,
As usual you have been right on the money in my instance.
First of all, confronted with the bullet connections (hardly metric,
for a 914) I presumed that it must be something much more complex and thus
my first query.
Secondly, I employ a Dynon engine display unit with its multitude of
small wires bunched almost exactly where the Mag switch lines were to enter
the instrument panel. I imagined the worst.
Third, it appears the switches will have to site almost up against
my other weakness, a 10inch screen run by a MiniMac for GPS, APRS,
navigation etc.
All of this left me with the fear that even the slightest ignition
RMI would affect the second two, and determined to run it with the securest
coax cover I know - the RG400. To realise that your solution, the looping of
the centre coax wire out of its shield and termination (a task I have
performed perhaps hundreds of time in HF gear) is enough - convinces me I'm
in the wrong hobby.......
Nevertheless, having today produced a stainless steep panel for twin
feed-through BNC females at the firewall and a alu box which houses the back
of the two switches, I am committed to completing the fiasco and will
probably have the cleanest ignition result in four counties.....
Ah well - a purified soul leads to a good night's sleep.
Again many thanks for your help and advice.
Ferg
PS - and because I was trying to use a 2-blade coax stripper, I couldn't
fathom the dimensions.
Message 27
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: | The great(?) debate . . . |
Bob, thanks for responding to my query with your thoughts on the topic
(centralization and control of an aircraft electrical system).
I have no experience with electrical systems or homebuilding, just starting
my RV-9A QB. But even though I started programming with Fortran and punch
cards, I've kept reasonably current with computer usage and trends over the
last nearly 35 years. I work with and develop numerical models of estuaries
at work. In other words I still enjoy tinkering with PCs. I won't
dogmatically put a technology on- or off-limits for a proposed application.
Well, true, it would be a hard sell to convince me that anything from
Microsoft would be safe aboard an airplane.
Furthermore, as I consider my experience over the last few years owning and
maintaining a minimal IFR Alon Aircoupe, I observe a number of problems have
come up with traditional "steam gage" technology as old as John McCain. So
I won't consider an old technology automatically better. Instead, each
technology must prove itself again as a competing idea comes along.
That forms the basis for the intrigue I feel about Vertical Power and its
concept. I've already decided there will be absolutely no vacuum pumps on
my -9A. And given the less than excellent reliability of mechanical gyros,
I will have an AHRS with at most a single electrical attitude gyro for
backup. Given the use of AHRS, that means I can put in an EFIS with, again,
a few--very few--traditional round gages for backup.
At this point something like VP begins to seem reasonable. When I first
heard of it only months ago I was shocked. Trust most of your electrical to
a single silicon box? And then allow it to make decisions and actuate
switches and things on your behalf?? But as the idea soaked in over the
weeks and I read about others' experience with it--admittedly still
limited--I found myself warming up to the idea.
I'm still a year away from making a final decision to use VP. But I
continue to solicit opinions everywhere I can, and again, sincerely
appreciate the time you took to write and post yours.
Ralph Finch
Davis, California
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:38 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: The great(?) debate . . .
--> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
At 08:28 AM 7/19/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>--> <rgf@dcn.davis.ca.us>
>
>Actually, I would much appreciate your thoughts on VerticalPower and
>its concept. If you've shared them before I'll search the archives....
>
>Ralph Finch
>RV-9A QB build
Vertical Power . . . and competitors offer a high
degree of integration for monitoring, automatic controls,
display of parameters of interest, some degree of
plug-n-play architecture and perhaps some computer
driven features that can be accessed by the user. These
might include check-lists and data gathering on some aspects
of system performance.
When compared with the breaker/fuse,-switch-wire-contactors
approach common to most of GA light-planes, it's an entirely
new world with design goals never considered until the
technology and manufacturing evolved. Certainly there have
been huge advancements in the capabilities we have to
"go solid state" or "enhance pilot ability to exert
a high degree of command and control with a reduced
workload." And, of course, we'll see the words "safety"
and "reliability" pop up in the advertisements as well.
I'm not sure there is value in trying to compare $300 worth
of wire, switches, fuses or breakers and the occasional
contactor with these new kids on the block. For years
I witnessed demonstrations at OSH by entrepreneurial
hopefuls for controlling the airplane over serial busses
"for the purpose of reducing wire weight."
The first question that comes to mind is what degree of
complexity has been added (along with vulnerabilities
to RF and lightning) in order to take perhaps 2 pounds
out of the empty weight of an RV? The earliest manifestations
of this trend were not very exciting because the part
counts went up. Further, maintenance spares were not the
kinds of parts you can buy at Aircraft Spruce, Steinair or B&C.
Over the years, the size and power of the proposed
computers grew as prices for those computers and their
design tools went down. Now we could begin to think
about doing things that the $300 lot of hardware cited
above cannot nor were ever intended to do. You can
"program" these things to exercise some intelligence,
display on LCD screens, take input from touch-screens, etc.
Now you have an entirely different product. It's
a flight management system that also happens to
replace $300 worth of hardware. Lighter than the
$300 system? Probably not. Sexier than the $300
system, you betcha!
The decision to incorporate this technology into
your airplane goes WWAAaayyy beyond the thought
processes we used to buy $300 worth of stuff
from B&C. This is because the new idea can do much
more than turn things on and off and keep wires from
burning up if faulted.
Now we find ourselves considering software driven
fault detection and clearing, software driven
on/off control, solid state switches replacing
every toggle, entering and displaying checklists,
recording clearances, etc. etc.
It's like stepping up from a 6-cyl, stick-shift,
chevy with nothing on it to a Lexus with everything
on it. Both vehicles take fuel and time to get you
from point A to point B. The differences to be
considered now become very personal. Some pilots
among you take some personal pride in designing,
crafting, understanding, operating and maintaining
the system built from $300 worth of parts. They
also do not feel intimidated about the thought
processes and actions necessary to deal with
a malfunction of a component in that system.
On the other hand, if the owner is especially
fond of the notion of automating these processes
and turning responsibility over to a suite of
components that he doesn't understand and cannot
service, then there are folks ready to offer systems
that addresses that desire.
The easiest targets for the latest-and-greatest
are those who do not understand the $300 system
and easily transition to not understanding
the multi-killobuck system as well. Probably
driven by some idea that if all the necessary
things for operating the system are taken
care of in software, then the owner/pilot need
not be concerned with such matters.
The decision to take advantage of highly
integrated, bells-and-whistles products is more
a matter of personal preferences than one of
utility and especially safety. Your airplane
isn't gong to fly any faster. It's not going to
be any lighter. The volume of stuff behind the
panel will be higher. And yes, one can be
relieved of having to deal with the occasional
but usually non-threatening failure of a
component . . . assuming the $300 worth of stuff
was crafted into a failure tolerant system.
My personal preference is driven by my professional
understanding of the components and architectures
available to me. Toss in the admittedly dated
"Mother! I want to do it myself!" attitude handed
down to me by my predecessors. A sort of "The Right
Stuff" approach to minimizing complexity where
it fails to increase the efficiency of the machine
or reduce cost of ownership. When I'm looking for
the ultimate convenience of operation, speed,
comfort, and lowest cost of ownership I buy
a ticket on a big iron bird. If I owned an OBAM
aircraft (or de-certified factory machine) it would
not be for the purpose of elevating its function
to level of a flying Lexus.
My personal "dream machine" is a de-certified
Pacer with Mogas STC. Strip out the back seats
and put in cargo tie-down platform. Strip out
electrical system and put Z13/8. Strip out
that butt-busting bench seat and put in nice
buckets out of an automobile. NOW, for a pittance
in relative costs, a lot of labor, I have
a product of my imagination, $time$ and
talents that I'm willing to suffer in for nine
hours of noise and bumps (NOT counting fuel
stops) to the west coast.
But be cautious of any notions that these
systems are safer or more reliable. Electrical system
malfunctions are very small contributors to
expensive or life threatening accidents. Reliability
has to be defined in terms whether any given failure
is a maintenance or safety issue. Are you striving
for never turning a wrench? Or perhaps maximizing the
numbers of no-sweat arrivals? I personally have no
problem with replacing the occasional inexpensive part
in a failure tolerant system. That's why I would
even choose to own an OBAM aircraft in the first
place. I have no doubt that these do-everything
products function as advertised. Return on investment
will not be known until we have years of marketplace
history.
Those of you considering the make-or-buy decision,
have to build you own case for $time$, design goals
and the satisfaction of getting utility out of the
best YOU know how to do in YOUR dream machine. A
big chunk of that equation considers how much you're
willing to learn and build as opposed to buying it.
Bob . . .
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! --
|