Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:12 AM - APRS for aircraft? (Lincoln Keill)
2. 07:56 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Dale Rogers)
3. 08:17 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (rampil)
4. 08:27 AM - Re: Re: APRS for aircraft? (Bill Boyd)
5. 08:50 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Dj Merrill)
6. 09:02 AM - Re: Re: APRS for aircraft? (Matt Prather)
7. 09:27 AM - Re: Alternative engines and vendors (Jay Hyde)
8. 09:51 AM - Re: Re: APRS for aircraft? (Vernon Little)
9. 09:53 AM - Terra Tri Nav C Wireing (Bill)
10. 10:17 AM - Re: Alternative engines and vendors (n801bh@netzero.com)
11. 11:01 AM - Re:Crossflow Subaru Engine (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
12. 02:15 PM - ANL current limiter location on rear battery installations (Beemer)
13. 02:20 PM - Alt to starter connection (Beemer)
14. 02:27 PM - FAQ question... (Beemer)
15. 02:42 PM - Re: Re:Crossflow Subaru Engine (Ken)
16. 06:40 PM - Mechanical noise cancellation experiment (Richard Girard)
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: | APRS for aircraft? |
Thanks to all who responded. The link to the Van's Air Force forum was very helpful.
Despite its limitations, I will be installing such a system in the wingtip
of my RV-7. It seems a wonderful complement to an ELT in the event someone
needs to come look for me. Thanks again. Now I just need to figure out how
long that wingtip antenna needs to be...
Lincoln
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Hi All,
Just a small reflection here - not of the standing wave type. I've
seen a few messages extolling the virtues of the APRS "system", one of
which was "it's free". I would like to remind those who think that way,
that those repeaters are there because some ARRL members (and maybe some
Hams who are not ARRL), out of their own pockets, have paid to build
those repeaters and installed the antennas, and continue to pay to power
the equipment. No government fees doesn't mean it's "no cost."
~Someone~ is paying for it.
If you are using the system, you might want to find out who's operating
the repeater you use the most and donate a few bucks to help defray the
costs of keeping it on the air.
Dale R.
Lincoln Keill wrote:
>
> Thanks to all who responded. The link to the Van's Air Force forum was very
helpful. Despite its limitations, I will be installing such a system in the wingtip
of my RV-7. It seems a wonderful complement to an ELT in the event someone
needs to come look for me. Thanks again. Now I just need to figure out
how long that wingtip antenna needs to be...
>
> Lincoln
>
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Hi Dale,
Well put!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212247#212247
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Nevertheless, APRS works well airborne for those of us who actually use it.
-Bill B
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:54 PM, rampil <ira.rampil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Having been an advanced class "ham" in high school, I too think
> this is a great idea but not ready for prime time.
>
> Several people mentioned already that you need an amateur radio
> license to transmit on 2 meters. The FCC wasn't too fond of one way
> data streams either, last time I checked (long ago).
>
> The signal is really just line of sight 95% of the time so in NYC, you
> are covered at any altitude, but where there is low ham population
> density and high terrain, you could only expect it to work above
> typical VFR altitudes. The repeaters tend to be built on the highest
> peaks where electricity is available (one way or another) and
> enough hams on 2 m to foot the bill. BTW 432Mhz is also popular for
> repeaters.
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212155#212155
>
>
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Dale Rogers wrote:
>
> If you are using the system, you might want to find out who's
> operating the repeater you use the most and donate a few bucks to help
> defray the costs of keeping it on the air.
Or put up an APRS ground based system of your own to help expand the
network. I'll be putting one up in my area at my house at some point.
It is not terribly expensive to do so - an old PC, some free software, a
cheap ham radio (or even an old scanner) and an external antenna.
Here is some more detailed information on how to do so:
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=30180>
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ KR-2 Builder N770DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/ http://deej.net/kr-2/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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: APRS for aircraft? |
I have to think APRS is worlds better than a 121.5 ELT. It doesn't have
to be perfect for it to be worthy of implementing - just markedly better.
I think EPIRB's and APRS should be proposed as an Alternate Means Of
Compliance for the ELT requirements - at least in amateur built aircraft.
If you can demonstrate that you will use a different and largely superior
system, the feds should be happy with that. I realize it may tend to
create administrative/regulatory headaches.. Too bad. :)
Regards,
Matt-
> Nevertheless, APRS works well airborne for those of us who actually use
> it.
>
> -Bill B
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:54 PM, rampil <ira.rampil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Having been an advanced class "ham" in high school, I too think
>> this is a great idea but not ready for prime time.
>>
>> Several people mentioned already that you need an amateur radio
>> license to transmit on 2 meters. The FCC wasn't too fond of one way
>> data streams either, last time I checked (long ago).
>>
>> The signal is really just line of sight 95% of the time so in NYC, you
>> are covered at any altitude, but where there is low ham population
>> density and high terrain, you could only expect it to work above
>> typical VFR altitudes. The repeaters tend to be built on the highest
>> peaks where electricity is available (one way or another) and
>> enough hams on 2 m to foot the bill. BTW 432Mhz is also popular for
>> repeaters.
>>
>> --------
>> Ira N224XS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212155#212155
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
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: | Alternative engines and vendors |
I tried to respond to you directly via the address that you listed on this
list had but it got bounced- here is what I wrote:
Hey there Ben,
I had a look at your video today- really enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing the
data. I am the Jay from South Africa :-)
Later on I'll probably ask you a few other questions- what is the HP rating
of your engine by the way?
Jay
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contact details for Jay Hyde
Mobile: +27 (0) 83 300 8675
Email: jay@horriblehyde.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
n801bh@netzero.com
Sent: 03 November 2008 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternative engines and vendors
There are a bunch of us who are not happy with the current source of
electronics, powerplants and for that matter aircraft design. We are the
ones who push the envelope and try new things. Progress transfers over, in
cars it is "todays racecars are tomorrows streetcars". As for us in the OBAM
arena this timeframe is 'FAA slow'. <GG> For those who are really
interested I have a 25 minute video on the web showing alot of my
conversion, the good and bad. !! Grab a cold soda pop or an adult beverage
and get a good chuckle at my first attempt at video work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7272451917550730841&hl=en
Do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
At 10:56 AM 11/3/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>An Alternative engine your cup of tea???
>
>
>An alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone or even most,
>whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But, for those
>who find it a challenge and are interested in something different its
>kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the risks and
>challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution.
>
<snip>
>I repeat - an alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone or
>even most, whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But,
>for those who find it a challenge and are interested in something
>different its kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the
>risks and challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution
>and task of assessing the vendor you purchase products from. Word of
>mouth from customers is probably the best source but, even there you need
>to separate real problem from a customer perceptions. Some customers
>will bad-mouth a vendor when the real problem is the customer s lack of
>understanding or misunderstanding the true situation. But, if a major of
>a vendor s customers are unhappy, there is likely a good reason for it.
>
>
>Just my $0.02
>
>
>Keep flying and keep it safe.
>
>
>Ed Anderson
Right on! Let's strive to stock the AeroElectric-List
archives with finely sifted ideas rich in recipes for
success and illumination of those ideas which should
be avoided. Thank you for this objective enhancement
&nbs================================================p;(And Get Some
AWsp;-Matt Dralle,
L========================bsp;- The
AeroElectric-L================================================;-
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
==========================================================
____________________________________________________________________________
_______
Get Freebies & Coupons -- Free of Hassle at FreeInternet.com!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Pinpoint, and is
believed to be clean.
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: APRS for aircraft? |
I'd like to address some things related to APRS.
If we treat APRS as a technology trial, it becomes pretty clear what the
limitations and advantages are. In my long career in high tech, I found
that the probability of success of a new technology was more positively
related to low cost than technical perfection. In that spirit, I think
some
type of APRS has tremendous potential.
Here's my model:
Based on the proven amateur-radio developed APRS, we could build an
infrastructure as follows:
1) The FCC/FAA (or equivalents) allocate a discreet VHF frequency in the
aviation comm or nav bands for APRS tracking.
2) This frequency must be able to run FM (rather than the normal AM) so
that
APRS will work as proven in the VHF Ham band. FM is essential to the
broadcast nature of APRS because it exhibits what's called "capture
effect"
in which the strongest signal at the receiver is decoded and others are
rejected. This is like the "cocktail-party" effect. When you are
talking
in normal voices in small groups, you can hear each other, and you brain
blocks out all of the other conversations around you. Contrast this
with
the "frat party" effect where everyone is shouting and nobody can hear.
This approach also works better with low-power transmitters, not the 8
or 10
watt blasters that some people fly with--- no need to shout in small
groups!
3) This also takes care of the transmit-only problem. Many Hams think
that
it's unethical to transmit before listening on a radio band. In
general,
this is true, but for low-power FM APRS the opposite is true. If all
APRS
stations listened before talking, they would all eventually end up in a
deadlock situation where they all transmit at the same time! Think of a
rule at a very large frat party where only one person is allowed to talk
at
once. Everyone else is waiting for the speaker to finish before jumping
in
with their full-power transmissions... they'd all synchronize to
shouting at
the same time, even though they think it's ok to talk! APRS has a line
of
sight range of hundreds of miles, so you can see the problem with
waiting
for a quiet time to talk, even if you only need to reach the digipeater
5
miles away.
4) Equip all existing VHF groundstations (Comm and Nav) with APRS
digital
repeaters and/or internate gateways (digipeaters, igates). Very
economical.
Have the FAA or equivalent run a website like www.aprs.fi .
5) Encourage digital repeaters (digipeaters) to be installed in aircraft
rather than just position transmitters. Perhaps mandate (encourage?)
commercial aircraft first. Now you have a constellation of aircraft
overhead listening to APRS position reports and relaying them
potentially
thousands of miles. (BTW there is already an amateur APRS digipeater in
orbit). This should take care of the spotty coverage at low altitudes
or
mountainous terrain. Combined with (4), we have a redundant distributed
(and cheap) system that is extremely fault tolerant.
The downside of the above is that it requires new hardware in aircraft.
OK
for amateur builts, but nothing is cheap for certified aircraft. With
ADS-B
coming, some may ask why? I go back to my first statement... make it
cheap
enough and it will become good enough! A transmit-only device can be
made
very cheaply (mine cost $100.00). A digipeater will be more expensive
($200.00?). Installation costs are more expensive than the hardware.
Make
it common and it will be eventually built into VHF comms. Think of an
SL-40
(already has a GPS input), internally modified to transmit APRS packets
when
not being used for voice R/T. Installation now becomes a box swap.
I've oversimplified this, of course, but my point is that this
technology is
very powerful, intrinsically reliable and fault tolerant and cheap.
Even
with the FAA involved (add some zeros to my costs), there is a rational
deployment scenario where coverage improves over time. Eventually, if
all
aircraft have it, it can be used for traffic awareness, but that's
another
topic.
All of this started because of the ELT debate, but APRS (for that
matter,
SPOT) has other benefits than just finding crumpled metal.
Vern Little
Vx Aviation
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Boyd
Sent: November 4, 2008 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: APRS for aircraft?
Nevertheless, APRS works well airborne for those of us who actually use
it.
-Bill B
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:54 PM, rampil <ira.rampil@gmail.com> wrote:
Having been an advanced class "ham" in high school, I too think
this is a great idea but not ready for prime time.
Several people mentioned already that you need an amateur radio
license to transmit on 2 meters. The FCC wasn't too fond of one way
data streams either, last time I checked (long ago).
The signal is really just line of sight 95% of the time so in NYC, you
are covered at any altitude, but where there is low ham population
density and high terrain, you could only expect it to work above
typical VFR altitudes. The repeaters tend to be built on the highest
peaks where electricity is available (one way or another) and
enough hams on 2 m to foot the bill. BTW 432Mhz is also popular for
repeaters.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212155#212155
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: | Terra Tri Nav C Wireing |
Have a question on the wiring of a tri nav c. I have the manual but
one thing is not very clear.
I am using a terra txn 920 nav/com and a Navaid ap 1 autopilot. I guess
my question is,
What is done with green wire from Tri Nav C Plug #1 pin # 7 ?
The tri nav c manual states that it is grounded (Where?)
The Txn 920 manual diagram shows it connected to Pin #9 on plug
#1. Is Pin #9 a proper ground? When connected to a
navaid ap 1 autopilot.
Thanks Bill S.
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: | Alternative engines and vendors |
Jay, the basic engine does not change. I can detune it a little more but
that puts it in the V-6 Chevy range and the great guys at Belted Air gu
ys have that market well figured out and units ready for sale. Just by c
hanging the cam profile and the redrive ratio I can take my package and
bump it up to the 450 HP range for take off and five minutes or so, then
throttled back to 400 or so for constant cruise. Weight will not chang
e, of course fuel burn will. If you need further info email me @ www.ha
aspowerair.com
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Jay Hyde" <jay@horriblehyde.com> wrote:
m>
I tried to respond to you directly via the address that you listed on th
is
list had but it got bounced- here is what I wrote:
Hey there Ben,
I had a look at your video today- really enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing
the
data. I am the Jay from South Africa :-)
Later on I'll probably ask you a few other questions- what is the HP rat
ing
of your engine by the way?
Jay
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contact details for Jay Hyde
Mobile: +27 (0) 83 300 8675
Email: jay@horriblehyde.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
n801bh@netzero.com
Sent: 03 November 2008 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternative engines and vendors
There are a bunch of us who are not happy with the current source of
electronics, powerplants and for that matter aircraft design. We are the
ones who push the envelope and try new things. Progress transfers over,
in
cars it is "todays racecars are tomorrows streetcars". As for us in the
OBAM
arena this timeframe is 'FAA slow'. <GG> For those who are really
interested I have a 25 minute video on the web showing alot of my
conversion, the good and bad. !! Grab a cold soda pop or an adult bever
age
and get a good chuckle at my first attempt at video work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7272451917550730841&hl=en
Do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
At 10:56 AM 11/3/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>An Alternative engine your cup of tea???
>
>
>An alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone or even mos
t,
>whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But, for tho
se
>who find it a challenge and are interested in something different its
>kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the risks and
>challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution.
>
<snip>
>I repeat - an alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone
or
>even most, whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. B
ut,
>for those who find it a challenge and are interested in something
>different its kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the
>risks and challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a soluti
on
>and task of assessing the vendor you purchase products from. Word of
>mouth from customers is probably the best source but, even there you ne
ed
>to separate real problem from a customer perceptions. Some customer
s
>will bad-mouth a vendor when the real problem is the customer s lack of
>understanding or misunderstanding the true situation. But, if a major
of
>a vendor s customers are unhappy, there is likely a good reason for it.
>
>
>Just my $0.02
>
>
>Keep flying and keep it safe.
>
>
>Ed Anderson
Right on! Let's strive to stock the AeroElectric-List
archives with finely sifted ideas rich in recipes for
success and illumination of those ideas which should
be avoided. Thank you for this objective enhancement
&nbs=======================
========================
=p; (And Get Some
AWsp; -Matt Dralle,
L========================
bsp; - The
AeroElectric-L====================
========================
====; -
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
========================
========================
________________________________________________________________________
____
_______
Get Freebies & Coupons -- Free of Hassle at FreeInternet.com!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Pinpoint, and is
believed to be clean.
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
_____________________________________________________________
Save money on your project by attaining multiple quotes from contractors
. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4uDF6GyxPdLTwyHEhUL
ur2dUFiQnjTb3C6fq956eAiuO1aS9/?count=1234567890
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:Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Folks,
At one time I was very interested in a converted Subaru. IMO, there is a
wonder of technology in this fine engines... in cars. Problem is for aircraft...
It needs a gearbox (PRSU heavy), also has to get rid of the same amount of
heat as a Lycosaurus per HP and do it with radiators (heavy, heavy, heavy),
usually needs redundant electrical systems (batteries, heavy), special propellers,
etc., etc. the list goes on.
Did I mention these are a lot heavier than LycoCont?
Buyers should be aware that all these products from vendors are "experiments
in progress". For a time I ran a website devoted to alternative engines and
heard numerous complaints about vendors and their problems with non delivery,
failed products, poor business practices, and lawsuits (Crossflow) by
customers.
I believe Eggenfellner has really tried to get a good foothold in this market
and is pretty honest, but assuming the best of intentions, has orphaned
engines, the STI Subaru for instance.
The idea that these are "plug and play" and can just be popped into your
airframe like a Lyco is false, and has led to many folks with empty pockets. So,
do extensive research before committing to same.
Be totally prepared to do your own engineering, also, just like the author of
this thread. Good thing he's an EE.
Get your money back? Not a chance. Usually these folks fund their operations
with deposits. Other words, to deliver end product, they rely on current
deposts, and this is very common in aviation.
As usual, my dime's worth,
Jerry Cochran
Sherwood, OR
18XP RV-6a 150hrs on Superior XP-IO-360 169 knots at 8500' 7.7 GPH LOP
In a message dated 11/4/2008 12:01:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list@matronics.com writes:
Are you suggesting that one failure of an automotive
derivative in the marketplace is a benchmark for all
such endeavors? For every success in the marketplace,
there are dozens of failures in the lab or engineering
test vehicles.
The first engines installed on the B-29 were the most
parts-intensive products of their time and failure rates
on the order of 1 every 10-40 hours. The first fielded
B-29's were pampered to the extreme to keep the airplane
marginally useful while development efforts worked out
the bugs. THOSE engines were produced by a company with
a great deal of experience in the design and manufacture
of aircraft engines.
Toyota built some air racing engines . . . but we're
not seeing those on TC aircraft either. But then, why
put $millions$ into developing an engine that will be sold
at perhaps 1000 pcs per year when the same $millions$ might
produce an engine that is sold into millions of cars?
As I suggested earlier, the breakthrough developments
will probably not come from the established suppliers
to the marketplace. This is demonstrated by the fact that
the most successful automotive derivatives flying are
not offered by the original manufacturer of the
engine. The fact that Toyota or Porsche stubbed
their toes was probably predictable but the lessons
learned were invaluable.
But it's disingenuous to paint all automotive
conversion efforts with a brush dipped into the
failures of a few.
Bob . . .
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
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: | ANL current limiter location on rear battery installations |
> > That interested me since in another context I had been wondering about ANL
location. I was
> puzzling why in Z-24 the ANL was shown downstream of the internally regulated
alternator
> isolation contactor. My thinking was that by having it close to the alternator
it would blow if
> anything (including the isolation contactor) ran amok downstream. What is the
advantage of
> having it at the main bus end ?
> A The ANL limiter (fat fuse) is there to protect the alternator b-lead wire .
. . the source of
> energy that places this wire at risk is NOT the alternator but the battery. An
alternator is
> incapable of putting out enough current to open its own b-lead protection while
the battery is
> capable of fat-wire faults approaching 1000 amps. So, while selecting the SIZE
of the protection
> device is driven by alternator output capability, selecting LOCATION is associated
with the risk
> source . . the BATTERY.
> On some occasions, we have fat wires that can source a fault from either end
. . . in
> which case, you might have a limiter at both ends of the same conductor. However,
I've never
> encountered a situation like this for small aircraft. Bob . . .
The above is in the FAQ's for the list. I would like to clarify a bit further:
If the battery is the current feeder in a frayed B-lead scenario, and the battery
is in the tail (with the master contactor and eng power bus (FI auto)), then
wouldn't the ANL current limiter be located back there as well? If so, between
the battery and contactor, or between the contactor and main bus loads?
My situation seems to dictate a current limiter on both ends of the B-lead...
Thanks,
--------
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Middle Georgia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212311#212311
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: | Alt to starter connection |
Sorry if this has been covered, but I can't find it anywhere.
First, I'm using a NipponDenso IR alternator of 55amps, and a Bosch starter from
the car the engine came from. I am not planning on using a separate starter
contactor.
On my install, it would be very convenient to run the power lead from the big starter
post to the alternator B-lead post, then 4AWG back to the battery.
Is it harmful to run the starter voltage through the alternator this way when cranking
the engine?
Thanks,
--------
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Middle Georgia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212312#212312
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 |
|
>From the list FAQ:
>
> >Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module shorts
the breaker
> as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it kills the voltage to the
field of the
> contactor which is connecting the alternator output (B lead) to the battery,
thus removing the
> offending voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
power internally
> to the alternator itself.
>
> A Internally and externally regulated alternators ARE slightly different in the
way that the
> OVM tames a runaway alternator. For internally regulated machines, the external
B-lead
> contactor is not necessary. Bob . . .
Bob,
Is the above response a typo? Figure Z-24 was conceived FOR an IR alternator, no?
It basically adds an alt disconnect contactor and shows how to wire it up.
But the above comment suggests it is not necessary.
I'm confused...
--------
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Middle Georgia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212314#212314
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:Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Which is all mostly true but mostly surmountable with effort.
My one off 2.2 liter subaru with dual multi port EFI and electrical
systems comes in at about the same weight as an 0-320. The mission
weight with fuel for the same range is arguably quite a bit less. SFC's
are similar to a Lyc running LOP but I happily cruise at very low power
(just over 4 gph) with no fouling, temperature, or mixture issues. Yet
it seems to match a fixed pitch 0-320 for take off and climb
performance. All with an economical Warp Drive prop. I cruise slow but I
usually catch up to my buddies (same aircraft types) by the time they've
finished refueling. At the end of the day I've burnt about half the fuel
quantity and it is cheaper mogas. I don't participate in the "how hot is
your engine" conversations, and I'm there in time for the first beer ;)
My only issue has been the gearbox which in my case is indeed heavy and
expensive. But so far I'm happy with the second one. Conversions are
over hyped and definitely not for everyone but they can be absolutely
wonderful for some applications like mine. 0-320 STOL performance, the
advantages of EFI, rotax 912 fuel consumption in cruise, hassle free
winter flying, etc.
Downside includes: I'm on my own if anything needs repair. Since I avoid
leaded fuel, it is sometimes less convenient obtaining mogas on long
trips. (Long means more than 7 hours in my case). It is getting harder
to avoid alcohol but I will burn it in preference to 100LL as long as it
is consumed within about 24 hours.
Ken
(I promise not to say any more on this list)
Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote:
> Folks,
>
> At one time I was very interested in a converted Subaru. IMO, there is a
> wonder of technology in this fine engines... in cars. Problem is for
> aircraft... It needs a gearbox (PRSU heavy), also has to get rid of the
> same amount of heat as a Lycosaurus per HP and do it with radiators
> (heavy, heavy, heavy), usually needs redundant electrical systems
> (batteries, heavy), special propellers, etc., etc. the list goes on.
>
> Did I mention these are a _lot_ heavier than LycoCont?
>
> Buyers should be aware that all these products from vendors are
> "experiments in progress". For a time I ran a website devoted to
> alternative engines and heard numerous complaints about vendors and
> their problems with non delivery, failed products, poor business
> practices, and lawsuits (Crossflow) by customers.
>
> I believe Eggenfellner has really tried to get a good foothold in this
> market and is pretty honest, but assuming the best of intentions, has
> orphaned engines, the STI Subaru for instance.
>
> The idea that these are "plug and play" and can just be popped into your
> airframe like a Lyco is false, and has led to many folks with empty
> pockets. So, do _extensive research_ before committing to same.
> Be totally prepared to do your own engineering, also, just like the
> author of this thread. Good thing he's an EE.
>
> Get your money back? Not a chance. Usually these folks fund their
> operations with deposits. Other words, to deliver end product, they rely
> on current deposts, and this is very common in aviation.
>
> As usual, my dime's worth,
>
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: | Mechanical noise cancellation experiment |
Bob, I've been thinking of ways to overcome the noise issues we encountered
while flying the trike this summer and came to the conclusion that some sort
of mechanical cover might help. I have searched the housewares aisle at
various box stores and wandered Ace Aircraft Supply looking for inspiration.
The other night I had an Aha! moment. The picture shows the result. I held
the terminal boots in my closed hand to warm them up before I tried to slide
them over the headset mic and the boom joint. I used a bamboo skewer with a
rounded end to gently pry and stretch the opening when it wanted to catch on
the screw head at the swivel. After they were on I cut some thin porous foam
to make a muff over the mic element and pushed it in the boot and around the
mic with the skewer.This afternoon Lou and I went out in the back yard and
did a test to see how well the idea worked. The wind was blowing at almost
flight speed for the trike and the results were very good. It took very
little squelch to knock down what little noise came through and the wind did
not activate the mic at all. I don't know how well it will work with the
ambient noise in the trike with the engine behind us, but the first pass
test seems promising.
Rick
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! --
|