Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:05 AM - Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%... (Matt Dralle)
1. 06:48 AM - Re: Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%... (JAMES SMITH)
2. 07:16 AM - Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for Sharing (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:21 AM - Re: Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:25 AM - Re: Prestolite vs B&C (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:35 AM - Re: Prestolite vs B&C (Peter Pengilly)
6. 12:05 PM - Re: Prestolite vs B&C (Allan Aaron)
7. 12:28 PM - Re: Prestolite vs B&C (David M)
8. 06:17 PM - Re: Prestolite vs B&C (Charlie England)
9. 07:42 PM - Re: Prestolite vs B&C (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
10. 09:22 PM - Re: Prestolite vs B&C (David M)
11. 09:40 PM - Re: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for Sharing (Ed Holyoke)
12. 10:10 PM - test email (David M)
13. 11:33 PM - Re: Squeal PTT (Allan Aaron)
Message 0
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: | Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%... |
As of the 13th, the Fund Raiser is currently about 30% behind last year in terms
of the number of Contributions. Yet, oddly the number of messages posted per
day is up by 10 to 20% on the average. It costs real money to run these Lists
and they are supported 100% though your Contributions during the Fund Raiser.
Won't you please take a minute right now to make your Contribution to keep
these Lists up and running?
Contribution Page:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
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: | Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%... |
Matt:
I tried several times last year to donate=2C but could not make it work and
gave up. I'll try again and let you know how it works -- either way.
Jim Smith> Date: Fri=2C 14 Nov 2008 00:04:45 -0800> To: aeroelectric-list@m
atronics.com> From: dralle@matronics.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fund
Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%... > > --> AeroElectric-List message p
osted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>> > As of the 13th=2C the Fund
Raiser is currently about 30% behind last year in terms of the number of Co
ntributions. Yet=2C oddly the number of messages posted per day is up by 10
to 20% on the average. It costs real money to run these Lists and they are
supported 100% though your Contributions during the Fund Raiser. Won't you
please take a minute right now to make your Contribution to keep these Lis
ts up and running? > > Contribution Page: > > http://www.matronics.com/cont
ribution > > Thank you for your support! > > Matt Dralle > Email List Admin
=====================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_5gb_
112008
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: | Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for Sharing |
At 09:53 PM 11/13/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>
>We found a way to not have any electrons for keeping the engine alive.
>Easy enough not to have our problem, but very critical that you do it
>right. The fat wire from the battery to the contactor shorted out on a
>brake line and filled the cabin with smoke. Shutting off the master didn't
>help since it was downstream of the short.
When the industry accepted the notion that fat wire
protection wasn't useful or necessary in TC aircraft,
they were also cognizant of a need for due-diligence in
the installation of said wires . . . separation and
support being chief amongst concerns.
The scenario cited above could also have caused a
landing accident. If the short had been a soft fault,
it might have slowly eroded a hole in a brake line
causing loss of brakes.
Here's an excerpt from a thread that ran though the
List 4 years ago:
-----
IMHO, the only advantage of zip-ties is reduced time for installation. I
don't recommend using them in the engine compartment, they get brittle with
time and can let loose without warning.
This is mostly a materials issue. Like bolts, you can purchase
cable ties in a wide variety of materials and qualities . . . and
like bolts, you cannot deduce the any secrets of fabrication by
simply looking at it.
Not all plastics are equal but most all plastics are relatively
cheap . . . so it's not difficult to purchase cable ties fabricated
from known materials selected for their suitability to the task.
If one wishes to acquire the Cadillac of cable ties made from the
same stuff as the wire insulation of choice, you can purchase
Tefzel ties from lots of places not the least of which is our
friends a Steinair. See:
http://www.steinair.com/cableties.htm
Any supplier worth his salt will KNOW where his inventory comes
from, what it's made of and MAY be able to advise for or against
the use of any particular product in certain applications. When
you buy that big jar of 1000 cable ties at Harbor Freight for $9.95,
what you see is what you get and you cannot deduce much from simply
seeing.
For ties that you do not wish to look and or touch for a very
long time, it's worth your time and effort to purchase ties
by name brand manufacturers where the material and it's features
are cited. Looking for UV, ozone, and/or hydrocarbon resistant
products. These are NOT the generic nylon cable wraps offered by
the vast majority of consumer oriented suppliers including
Walmart and Harbor Freight.
Tensioning zip-ties is also problematic. If you overtension, they WILL eat
the insulation with enough vibration/time.
There are at least two underlying issues here. Insulation is hard
to "eat" . . . but certain insulations like Teflon are soft enough
to flow under continuous pressure exceeding its compression strength
combined with heating cycles.
I have also seen wire-ties eat into engine mounts and aluminum when
installed improperly
There have been suggestions in this thread concerning abrasion of
metal tubes like engine mounts due to the improper use of cable ties.
I'll suggest that ANY form of wire attachment can become a problem
for metals IF the attachment is loose enough to allow motion -AND-
you add dust and grit to the space between the metal surface and
whatever is riding against it.
I had a power steering hose simply lay against a brake line in
my '57 Chevy for a bunch of years. I lost brakes when a hole
blew out in a section of the brake line thinned by continuous
motion of a rubber hose lubricated with gritty grease. This didn't
even involve a wire tie, "Adel" clamp or similar technology. These
kinds of things CAN and DO happen and it has nothing to do with
the type of retention technology and a LOT to do with craftsmanship.
If you undertension, wire-ties they don't hold well. They have a tendency
to slightly loosen after initial installation. To cure the above problems,
you might consider a wire tie install tool.
There are cable tie installation tools that feature adjustable
and repeatable tensioning and cutoff adjustments. Many factories
use them (including Raytheon Aircraft) and they've proven useful.
They're not cheap. I've never bothered to own one. The range of
acceptable tensions for wire ties is large and it's not hard to
apply them by hand in a way that offers long service life.
Wire-ties also have an affinity for human skin. You'll find this out down
the road when you reach up behind your panel to do something and shortly
thereafter donate a small amount of blood to the nylon god.
This is not so much an issue with the tie but how the tail is cut off.
Avoid using the classic diagonal wire cutter (dikes) . . . they
part the material by driving two symmetrical wedges together and
the finished cut protrudes from the tie buckle and is sharp. Use
flush cutters like:
http://www.action-electronics.com/cutters.htm
http://www.home-jewelry-business-success-tips.com/wire-cutter.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Wire_Cutters/Flush-Cutters.jpg
. . . and trim the tail off squarely and flush with the buckle
and you'll not have to bleed on the project at any time in the
future.
For shear beauty (and no cuts on your hands) nothing can beat tying your
wires together the old fashioned way. See the aeroelectric site for the
technique. Yes, it's time consuming! and requires a certain amount of
learned skill.
Probably no more effort than required to learn the use
of a cable-tie installation tool. However, there's
nothing 'magic' about the techniques suggested in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
the choice of MATERIALS is still just as critical. You
wouldn't want to tie up your wire bundles with kite
string.
Adels work great. They also weigh more and are time consuming to install.
I'd use them to use larger wiring harnesses and for all wiring attachment
in the engine compartment unless no other option exists.
We're talking about two related but different tasks. The cable tie
is used in many places to simply hold the bundle of wires together.
The MS21919 (Adel) series clamps . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/adel.html
. . . are certainly adequate to many applications. This doesn't
mean that other materials and technologies are not recommended.
Proper use of any technology is dependent upon understanding
it's limitations.
On occasion, a bundle of wires needs to be support on the airframe
either for the purpose of simply holding the bundle in place -or-
to prevent the bundle from coming into adverse contact with
parts of the airplane.
Like all things on an aircraft, each situation will require a balance of
needs and limitations...
Exactly. The situation is further improved with a thoughtful
analysis of cause and effect for both materials selection and
techniques applied to their use.
---------------
We who make a living swinging hammers and CAD keyboards
on airplanes experience the "red flag event" when any two
objects come into contact with each other in an uncontrolled
manner be it fluid lines, wires, control cables, etc.
The drill is to (1) fasten them together with appropriate
retention and buffering as illustrated in the cable lacing
article cited above or (2) separate them.
>Dragged the battery down to 5 volts.
I presume this was a voltage measured on the ground after
the smoke cleared. It's clearly indicative of a fault that
drained the battery well past the "used up" voltage level
of 10 volts. It would be interesting to have the carcasses
of shorted wire and brake line to inspect . . .
IMPORTANT . . . some readers of this thread may be thinking
that a fuse would have prevented this. NO. ANL's and their
cousins would probably have carried the current necessary to feed
this fault and discharge this battery. It's a much more practical
mitigation of risk to concentrate on installation technique than
to add protection for lack of craftsmanship.
>We do have one magneto and that's what kept it running long enough to get
>on the ground. Very, very important that this wire not be allowed to short,
Yup!
> especially if both of your ignitions are on it.
Please don't run both electrically dependent ignitions from
the same power source. Better yet, make at least one of
the ignition systems a self-powered Emag.
These are USEFUL events to know about, contemplate,
and analyze for discovery of lessons-learned (or
reminders of lessons forgotten).
These are the things that grey-beards in the
factories do as sort of second-nature and it's become
one of the most important services I can offer my
customers. The problem is that fewer and fewer of my
contemporaries get their hands dirty working on real
hardware . . . and fewer and fewer of our production
line folks are trained for or expected to think for
themselves nor are they given such information to
contemplate. It's just not the ISO9000 way.
Bottom line is that while our TC airframes grow in
parts count and operational complexity, the OBAM
aircraft community is becoming the true expert in
practical, low-risk aircraft design, fabrication
and operation.
Recall that several years ago we here on the
AeroElectric-List mounted an effort to help defend
Matronics from a silly, knee-jerk lawsuit.
If we can put on the white hats and come rushing
over the hill to rescue a good thing under attack,
then we must certainly nurture it too. It may be
heartwarming to offer somebody a Thanksgiving dinner
with all the trimmings . . . but there are 364
OTHER days in the year too.
If I were to send 1800 List members a bill for
their share of my services for the year at my
current rates, it would be a hell of a lot more
than $10 apiece. If Matt finds it necessary to
give up this endeavor for lack of support of the
hardware, then we suffer loss of a critical
communication tool. Be assured that I cannot
spend the $time$ necessary to support the same
mission one-on-one through my telephone or email!
I've donated over $1000 in product to this cause,
you folks can do a lot more for a lot less if
you all participate.
Do it now. Sent your $10 or more right now. The money
we're talking about won't buy you a lunch at Bennigan's.
This is MORE IMPORTANT than care and feeding
of the occasional predatory lawyer. Go to . . .
http://matronics.com/contribution
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: | Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%... |
At 09:46 AM 11/14/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Matt:
>
>I tried several times last year to donate, but could not make it work and
>gave up. I'll try again and let you know how it works -- either way.
Just checked it. It flagged a typo in my email address and
made me go back and fix it. After that, it worked as
advertised.
Bob . . .
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Prestolite vs B&C |
At 06:17 PM 11/14/2008 +1100, you wrote:
>After going to a lot of trouble to get the weight of my Mustang down I'm
>running out of options to get my CG further forward. The only solution I
>can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing the original
>Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs more than the
>B&C. Assuming it will fit in my cowling, are there any major
>disadvantages (advantages?) in using the Prestolite. Thanks. Allan
They're certainly a known quantity. Tho shalt
not fly a tail-heavy airplane lest ye discover
that you have but mere seconds to regret it.
A guy has to do what a guy has to do.
What airplane are you working with and what
combination of installation decisions painted
you into this corner?
Bob . . .
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: | Prestolite vs B&C |
A guy called Mark Landoll (405-392-3847 from Sport Aviation) used to
sell a harmonic dampener that bolted to the crankshaft and weighed
15+lb. It might help with the cg issues and also make the engine run
more smoothly? I believe a B&C starter is around 9lb lighter than a
Prestolite, but the cg of a Prestolite is a couple of inches further
aft.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allan
Aaron
Sent: 14 November 2008 07:18
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Prestolite vs B&C
After going to a lot of trouble to get the weight of my Mustang down I'm
running out of options to get my CG further forward. The only solution
I can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing the
original Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs more
than the B&C. Assuming it will fit in my cowling, are there any major
disadvantages (advantages?) in using the Prestolite. Thanks. Allan
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: | Prestolite vs B&C |
Bob, it's a Mustang II. The CG is within the allowable range as long as
I manage my fuel properly and don't carry any meaningful baggage.
However, I suspect the rear CG is making my handling on landing more
difficult. As for the combination of decisions .. I bought the plane as
a part completed project with wet wings (rather than a single forward
mounted fuel tank). I've relocated the battery to the firewall (using an
odyssey PC625 - I might be able to add a second battery there or maybe a
heavier one but really like the odyssey). I have a CS prop (a fair bit
more weight forward). The only thing I regret is making a slick and
very lightweight carbon fibre cowling whereas I could have made a much
cheaper and heavier fibreglass cowl:)
Allan
They're certainly a known quantity. Tho shalt
not fly a tail-heavy airplane lest ye discover
that you have but mere seconds to regret it.
A guy has to do what a guy has to do.
What airplane are you working with and what
combination of installation decisions painted
you into this corner?
Bob . . .
At 06:17 PM 11/14/2008 +1100, you wrote:
>After going to a lot of trouble to get the weight of my Mustang down
>I'm running out of options to get my CG further forward. The only
>solution I can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing
>the original Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs
>more than the B&C. Assuming it will fit in my cowling, are there any
>major disadvantages (advantages?) in using the Prestolite. Thanks.
>Allan
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Prestolite vs B&C |
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: Prestolite vs B&C |
Pretty good idea, and he also sells a simple steel ring of about the
same weight that's a lot less expensive than the damper (had one on my
1st RV-4).
BTW, if you need a Prestolite, I think I've got one on the shelf. Email
me off list & I'll try to come up with a price.
Charlie
Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
> A guy called Mark Landoll (405-392-3847 from Sport Aviation) used to
> sell a harmonic dampener that bolted to the crankshaft and weighed
> 15+lb. It might help with the cg issues and also make the engine run
> more smoothly? I believe a B&C starter is around 9lb lighter than a
> Prestolite, but the cg of a Prestolite is a couple of inches further aft.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Allan Aaron
> *Sent:* 14 November 2008 07:18
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Prestolite vs B&C
>
>
>
> After going to a lot of trouble to get the weight of my Mustang down
> I'm running out of options to get my CG further forward. The only
> solution I can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing
> the original Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs
> more than the B&C. Assuming it will fit in my cowling, are there any
> major disadvantages (advantages?) in using the Prestolite. Thanks. Allan
>
> * *
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: Prestolite vs B&C |
In a message dated 11/14/2008 1:21:17 A.M. Central Standard Time,
aaaron@tvp.com.au writes:
The only solution I can think of is taking off my B&C starter and
re-installing the original Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs
more
than the B&C.
>>>
I replaced a Delco starter (similar to Prestolite if not the same thing)
with a Sky-tec which really screwed up the W&B on my O-320/wood prop RV-6A
exactly as you describe. After hearing many recommendations on the RV-list and
elsewhere over the years, I added a Landoll Ring (a little over $100) to my
ring gear to balance things back out, but will need to get everything
dynamically balanced before I know the full effects of the Ring.
Copied from the Yeller Pages:
MARK LANDOLL 405-392-3847 405-685-0239 _landollskydoll2001@yahoo.com_
(mailto:%20landollskydoll2001@yahoo.com) STARTERS, MASS/DAMPING RINGS, ALTERNATORS
Mark Phillips
Columbia, TN
_http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/_
(http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/)
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: | Re: Prestolite vs B&C |
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: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for |
Sharing
Bob,
I didn't build the plane, but I did maintain it for more than 3 years
(and annual condition inspections) without noticing the danger posed by
the proximity of the two. I will never overlook this particular issue
again. The builder used a stainless braided line for the brake which
crossed near the battery cable at 90 degrees. The last time I replaced
the battery, apparently I failed to insure separation and it rubbed
through causing the short. The current was conducted along the brake
line to the gear leg mount where it was also rubbing, another oversight
on my part. The 5606 was all boiled off and filled the cabin with smoke.
My nephew declared emergency and shut off the master and E-busses while
holding the canopy part open, so he could breathe, with one hand and
flying with the other. He found an airport and landed and yes, the brake
was not functional. The voltage was measured after the fact, as you
surmised, Bob. When I got there 90 minutes later, the brake line was
still in contact with the cable. The cable had a total of 3 broken
strands and some localized discoloration. There was about a half a
square inch of insulation missing. It was returned to service with a
few layers of heat shrink over the scar. The braided line was limp and I
made a replacement in the field out of the aluminum tubing that Van's
supplies. There is now very positive separation between it and the
battery cable, believe me. I have replaced the fluid with the high temp
variant, MIL- PRF-83282. I also replaced the O-rings in the calipers
with Viton for higher temperature capacity.
I just wanted to share this story in the hope that people designing,
installing or maintaining systems take a hard look at the way the
battery cable to the contactor is protected from harm. This is pretty
much the only place in the plane where an insulation failure cannot be
mitigated by turning off a switch or automatically by circuit protection.
The other issue, as has been mentioned, is that if 2 electronic
ignitions are hooked to 1 battery, bad stuff you hadn't accounted for
could take them both down at once. I don't particularly like magnetos
and I think that, barring a failure in the power provided to them, an
electronic ignition is probably way more reliable. The thought of having
an magneto, which will almost certainly crap out at some point, as a
backup to a more reliable system offends my sensibilities. My next
airplane will have 2 EIs on board, and 2 batteries also. One of them may
wind up being little to save weight, but I don't want all my eggs in one
basket.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 09:53 PM 11/13/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>> <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>>
>> We found a way to not have any electrons for keeping the engine
>> alive. Easy enough not to have our problem, but very critical that
>> you do it right. The fat wire from the battery to the contactor
>> shorted out on a brake line and filled the cabin with smoke. Shutting
>> off the master didn't help since it was downstream of the short.
>
> When the industry accepted the notion that fat wire
> protection wasn't useful or necessary in TC aircraft,
> they were also cognizant of a need for due-diligence in
> the installation of said wires . . . separation and
> support being chief amongst concerns.
>
> The scenario cited above could also have caused a
> landing accident. If the short had been a soft fault,
> it might have slowly eroded a hole in a brake line
> causing loss of brakes.
>
>
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 |
|
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 |
|
Paul, you were right. It was my lightspeed Twenty3G headset that was
the problem. My 20XLc work fine as do the passive set I used. I=92ll
email lightspeed and see if they will fix them. Thanks for the tip!
Allan
On Behalf Of Paul McAllister
Hi Allan,
I called Light Speed and the worked on them at no charge to address the
problem. I can't say that it was completely fixed, but it improved them
to the point of making them usable.
Cheers, Paul
Checked by AVG.
13/11/2008 6:01 PM
Checked by AVG.
14/11/2008 7:32 PM
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! --
|