Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:00 AM - Re: self weighing our planes (Eric M. Jones)
2. 09:12 AM - Spike catcher diode (Wade Roe)
3. 09:39 AM - Re: Race timing help (Ian)
4. 10:12 AM - Re: Adel Clamps (Henry Trzeciakowski)
5. 10:20 AM - Re: self weighing our planes (glen matejcek)
6. 10:43 AM - Re: Re: self weighing our planes (Dan Morrow)
7. 10:56 AM - Re: self weighing our planes (Eric M. Jones)
8. 11:23 AM - Re : Re: Audio panel for nav audio (Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr)
9. 11:25 AM - Re: Re: Adel Clamps (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 11:33 AM - Re: Spike catcher diode (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 12:20 PM - Re: Re: self weighing our planes (Kevin Horton)
12. 12:45 PM - Re: Living without an audio panel (Vern Little)
13. 12:45 PM - Re: Living without an audio panel (Vern Little)
14. 01:33 PM - Re: self weighing our planes (Eric M. Jones)
15. 05:53 PM - Re: self weighing our planes (Dennis Johnson)
16. 06:28 PM - Re: Re: self weighing our planes (BobsV35B@aol.com)
17. 08:58 PM - Switch wiring conundrum (Mark R. Supinski)
18. 09:52 PM - Re: Switch wiring conundrum (Bob White)
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: self weighing our planes |
There have been a lot of good suggestions here.
If you want to know the whole story, use the search facility at USPTO.com, which
is the US patent and trademark office....always a first stop for technological
issues.
Search "aircraft weighing" or similar strings. This search takes a couple minutes
but will give you all the relevant patents. Anything filed before July3, 1989
is yours to use in any way you want. You can use more recent stuff, but don't
commercialize or advertise it.
You must download and install AlternaTIFF: http://www.alternatiff.com/ to see and print the full images. It is well worth a few minutes to figure out how to do this.
My other fav source is the NACA/NASA Technical Report Server:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp
This goes back to the start of aviation and is well worth a look.
"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
- Eolake Stobblehouse
--------
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=251306#251306
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: | Spike catcher diode |
I have the stock Van's master and starter contactors. Does anyone know
if either of these items have internal diodes? Also, what size diode
should be used on the starter contactor assuming an external is needed?
I'm referencing AEC Z-13/8. Thanks!
Wade Roe
SOUTHERN CARBIDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
7739 Unity Road M&D Industrial Park
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
205-248-6700
205-248-6372 fax
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: Race timing help |
They use photographs for horses! How about using a high resolution
camera photographing a clock and the finish line at the same time? You
would need to be able to recognize every aircraft from underneath. Some
cameras will allow multiple shots at the high resolution needed, or you
could take digital video if you think you'd have enough information.
Ian Brown
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 23:54 -0500, Greg Young wrote:
> I just participated in a type club speed event (without lawyers we'd
> call it a race) and the time keeping got unbelievably screwed up for
> such a small group (18 planes). Even though there are classes and
> staggered starts we got folks crossing the finish tip to tip at
> pattern altitude. Suffice to say that human errors on both the pilots
> and timers parts caused a lot of grief. Sooo... what kind of
> technology is out there to assist? All we really need is start and
> finish times for each plane. It could be plane based, ground based or
> a combo but it needs to be affordable for 20-30 planes to use and able
> to deliver the results quickly, e.g. a download and analysis of
> everyone's 396/496 bread crumb trail probably won't do. I was kinda
> thinking of giant barcodes under the wing and a 10 KW scanner at the
> finish point;-) Hopefully someone knows of something simpler, cheaper
> and more elegant. What's available?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg Young
>
>
>
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 |
|
Bob:
I'm using adel clamps to hold my wire bundle runs. Some of the wire
bundles in the clamps are "full" - tight. My question is, how "full or
tight" should the wire bundles be in the clamps? In one case, I'm using
a # 8 clamp where the wires are tightly packed. When I replaced with a
#9, the wire bundle is loose. How tight or loose should the wire bundles
be in the clamps?
Thanks
Henry
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: self weighing our planes |
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
> So, how can strain gauges ever work in a plane while it is moving (as
> someone earlier wished for...to determine LANDING WEIGHT for example!)
Well, if strain gauges were to be used my guess would be to put them on the
spars, subtract the stabilizer load from the wing load and then factor by
the g load.
> But that does beg the question as to what's the
> value of knowing that you're over-gross/out-of-CG
> AFTER takeoff?
That was my first question. As I recall, the answer given was to get a
measured weight in flight to determine accurate performance numbers. The
bus continuously displayed buffet margins, cruise speeds, best glide speed,
and the low speed raster. I don't know how much of that can be calculated
and displayed without determining the weight of the aircraft. An
independent AoA is pretty straight forward, but displaying performance
hacks numerically without knowing the weight of the plane seems like it'd
be a little trickier. It also occurs to me that the glide ratio of that
plane varied with weight (due to flexure of the structure causing a change
in the geometric twist of the wing ) which would factor into best economy
and glide calculations.
> I've done flight testing on most of the Airbus family, and this is the
> first I've ever heard of this. The fly-by-wire Airbus aircraft do
> have a backup CG calculation that uses airspeed, weight and stabilizer
> angle. This serves to crosscheck the CG that is calculated from the
> crew entered values of zero fuel weight and CG. Maybe this is what
> you were thinking of.
Given a fighting chance, I can pooch just about anything, but I just went
and took a quick look at some old training docs and they do say the plane
calculated it's weight after lift off.
> As an example, if the lift off speed was ten knots higher than had been
>
> calculated I would be twenty thousand pounds heavier than the paperwork
> showed. By using that new weight to establish climb and cruise numbers,
> the
> airplane would deliver the performance required. Hopefully, modern techni
> ques
> for gathering the data for weight manifests have improved drastically in
> the
> thirty-five plus years since I flew those charters, but it worked well for
>
> me!
>
About 10 years ago my employer of that moment darn near lost a 737 at LGA.
At V1 the F/O pulled the yoke all the way to the stop, yet the nose stayed
firmly on the ground. Fortunately, he had the presence of mind to start
running nose up trim. They got airborne before getting wet, but not by
much. After returning for the landing they found 5,000 undocumented pounds
in the forward bin....
>
>
> Perhaps knowing something about the weight and CG in case you need to
make a landing,
> especially an emergency landing? JR
>
I have yet to see Sully's presentation, but having that and related info
instantly available was likely a factor in the Hudson river event. I don't
recall if it was the 'bus or a different glass cockpit in my past, but one
of them would give you a glide range circle instead of an altitude
intercept arc when you spun the altitude alerter down to ground level. If
that function was available on the 'bus, it could have been an aid in
determining if to a return to LGA (or TEb or EWR) was feasible.
>
> But is it not an FAA mandate (and a damned good
> idea) that the pilot know that weight and balance
> limits have been checked BEFORE takeoff?
>
Certainly. But load reports can be significantly off, you can burn an
awful lot of gas enroute, totalizers can be inaccurate or inop, fuel gauges
can err, fuel can be lost, and so on. If 767's could weigh themselves, the
odds of a Gimli Glider - type episode would probably be reduced. It's just
one more tool, whose greatest utility might not be realized until the
unforeseen occurs.
>
> It has to do with something like: "The best laid plans of mice and men
>
AMEN!
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: self weighing our planes |
A point just to prevent confusion. USPTO.com is a private site that
offers patent related services. The government site is USPTO.gov
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 07:58 -0700, Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
> There have been a lot of good suggestions here.
>
> If you want to know the whole story, use the search facility at USPTO.com, which
is the US patent and trademark office....always a first stop for technological
issues.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251306#251306
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: self weighing our planes |
Slightly off topic--but there is a little electronic gauge that hot rods use that
measures acceleration. Reduced take-off acceleration hampers your ability to
get the bird into the air. It could be caused by any of a number of issues such
as excess weight--and would be good to know.
--------
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=251334#251334
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: Audio panel for nav audio |
----- Message d'origine -----
De: Buckaroo Banzai <ornerycuss2001@yahoo.com>
Objet: Re: AeroElectric-List: Audio panel for nav audio
> Gilles,
>
> The nav audio is available from the SL-30 without an audio panel.
> You can also access the menus to adjust the volume of the nav audio
> relative to the volume of the com audio. I have my nav volume set
> at 80 percent so that I always hear the com audio over the nav
> audio. I've been flying the airplane with this arrangement for 5
> years.
Greg,
Thank you for responding.
Did you connect the nav and com outputs direct to the phones (do't have the installation
manual at hand at the moment).
Thanks,
Gilles
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 |
|
At 03:17 PM 7/3/2009, you wrote:
>Bob:
>
>I'm using adel clamps to hold my wire bundle runs. Some of the wire
>bundles in the clamps are "full" - tight. My question is, how "full
>or tight" should the wire bundles be in the clamps? In one case,
>I'm using a # 8 clamp where the wires are tightly packed. When I
>replaced with a #9, the wire bundle is loose. How tight or loose
>should the wire bundles be in the clamps?
>
If one number is obviously loose, then the next number
down has to be the right one. They can have a pretty
firm grip on things. The rubber liners are more
compliant than Tefzel.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
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: Spike catcher diode |
At 11:09 AM 7/3/2009, you wrote:
>I have the stock Van's master and starter contactors. Does anyone
>know if either of these items have internal diodes? Also, what size
>diode should be used on the starter contactor assuming an external
>is needed? I'm referencing AEC Z-13/8. Thanks!
The master certainly would not. The starter MIGHT
and would say so stamped on the under side of
the mounting flange. In any case, two suppressors
are better than no suppressors.
There are no rectifier diodes you can pick that
will be at-risk for electrical overload. My personal
favorites are the electrical over-kill (but
mechanically robust) 1N540x series. These
are really inexpensive and available from
Radio Shack and others . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/RS_Diodes.jpg
The 1A, 1N400x series are electrically quite
adequate but more fragile.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
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: RE: self weighing our planes |
On 3-Jul-09, at 13:18 , glen matejcek wrote:
> >
>
>> I've done flight testing on most of the Airbus family, and this is
>> the
>> first I've ever heard of this. The fly-by-wire Airbus aircraft do
>> have a backup CG calculation that uses airspeed, weight and
>> stabilizer
>> angle. This serves to crosscheck the CG that is calculated from the
>> crew entered values of zero fuel weight and CG. Maybe this is what
>> you were thinking of.
>
> Given a fighting chance, I can pooch just about anything, but I just
> went
> and took a quick look at some old training docs and they do say the
> plane
> calculated it's weight after lift off.
Fascinating. Do the docs give any clue what the data source is for
this calculation?
The aircraft does know the crew-entered zero fuel weight and it knows
the fuel quantity sensed by the fuel indication system. It does
continuously calculate the current gross weight from that data, and
this is the weight that is used to display minimum flap/slat retract
speeds, green dot speed, etc.
--
Kevin Horton (Grounded)
RV-8 (Flying)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Living without an audio panel |
Here's a link to Vx Aviation's web site: www.vx-aviation.com. We make
the world's smallest audio panel, cable of handling 10 inputs and
connecting to any radio or intercom system with or without auxiliary
inputs. The biggest advantage is it's compact size and light weight.
All of the circuitry is contained in a 25-pin connector backshell,
including 4 channels with volume controls and six channels fixed level.
The fixed level inputs are normally connected to instruments that have
their own volume controls.
My direct contact is vx ""at"" vx-aviation.com.
Thanks,
Vern Little
Vx Aviation
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Living without an audio panel
At 08:28 AM 7/2/2009, you wrote:
I know this has been discussed before, please excuse, I am still
confused.
My intercom will accept one monaural input.
I want to simply "twist" all the low level audio outputs together
from the various boxes to the intercom (then solder or crimp). This
will make the volume control on the box and its on-off switch the
control for that unit.
What do I put in line between the intercom input and each box?
resistor, diode, snapjack, or do I need a small isolation amplifier?
Try series resistors as passive mixing devices. This
will take some fiddling but it may get you by. This
is described in figure 18-4 and associated text of
the 'Connection.
Alternatively, consider a small mixing (audio iso)
amplifier. An exemplar DIY project is offered at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf
there's a number of off-the-self products out there
too. Somebody announced their new offerings here
on the List a few weeks ago.
I've had a number of requests for the ECB to
build an amplifier from scratch. I'm putting the
bare ECB back on the website catalog in a few
minutes.
On switching the comm, I assume I need a 4pdt (on-on) to
switch=====-mic, ptt, indicator light, and audio low so I
don't get confused which comm I am listening to while transmitting?
Or is there a simple way to maybe add a resistor to the switch so
that the non-transmitting comm is still on but with a reduced output?
I don't know if that's available even in the super-whizzy
audio panels. It can be done but certainly calls for a
lot of development effort.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
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: Living without an audio panel |
Here's a link to Vx Aviation's web site: www.vx-aviation.com. We make
the world's smallest audio panel, cable of handling 10 inputs and
connecting to any radio or intercom system with or without auxiliary
inputs. The biggest advantage is it's compact size and light weight.
All of the circuitry is contained in a 25-pin connector backshell,
including 4 channels with volume controls and six channels fixed level.
The fixed level inputs are normally connected to instruments that have
their own volume controls.
My direct contact is vx ""at"" vx-aviation.com.
Thanks,
Vern Little
Vx Aviation
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Living without an audio panel
At 08:28 AM 7/2/2009, you wrote:
I know this has been discussed before, please excuse, I am still
confused.
My intercom will accept one monaural input.
I want to simply "twist" all the low level audio outputs together
from the various boxes to the intercom (then solder or crimp). This
will make the volume control on the box and its on-off switch the
control for that unit.
What do I put in line between the intercom input and each box?
resistor, diode, snapjack, or do I need a small isolation amplifier?
Try series resistors as passive mixing devices. This
will take some fiddling but it may get you by. This
is described in figure 18-4 and associated text of
the 'Connection.
Alternatively, consider a small mixing (audio iso)
amplifier. An exemplar DIY project is offered at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf
there's a number of off-the-self products out there
too. Somebody announced their new offerings here
on the List a few weeks ago.
I've had a number of requests for the ECB to
build an amplifier from scratch. I'm putting the
bare ECB back on the website catalog in a few
minutes.
On switching the comm, I assume I need a 4pdt (on-on) to
switch=====-mic, ptt, indicator light, and audio low so I
don't get confused which comm I am listening to while transmitting?
Or is there a simple way to maybe add a resistor to the switch so
that the non-transmitting comm is still on but with a reduced output?
I don't know if that's available even in the super-whizzy
audio panels. It can be done but certainly calls for a
lot of development effort.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
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: self weighing our planes |
Google "weight and balance computer"
Everything is there. DON'T Miss the Librascope analog weight and balance computer.
You can Google that too.
--------
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=251370#251370
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: self weighing our planes |
The C-130s I flew at the tail end of the Vietnam war all had fancy and
expensive weight and balance computers. The system measured the weight
on each wheel and displayed the airplane's gross weight and center of
gravity.
I don't know of any that worked, however. The common belief was that
the computer went out of calibration after the first landing. All
loadmasters I knew used a wooden slide rule specially designed for the
C-130. So far as I know, the slide rule never went out of calibration.
On the other hand, one of our primary engine gauges was the amount of
torque the jet engine was applying to the propeller. I don't know, but
it may have been based on strain gauges. The torque meters always
seemed to be accurate and stable.
Dennis
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: RE: self weighing our planes |
Good Evening Dennis,
Most engine torque meters get their information from sensors mounted within
the reduction gear housing on the engine. It measures the amount of
pressure applied to the ring gear. Works quite well and is very reliable.
First developed for large radials during WWII. Works good on turbo props as
well.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 7/3/2009 7:54:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
pinetownd@volcano.net writes:
The C-130s I flew at the tail end of the Vietnam war all had fancy and
expensive weight and balance computers. The system measured the weight on
each wheel and displayed the airplane's gross weight and center of gravity.
I don't know of any that worked, however. The common belief was that the
computer went out of calibration after the first landing. All loadmasters
I knew used a wooden slide rule specially designed for the C-130. So far
as I know, the slide rule never went out of calibration.
On the other hand, one of our primary engine gauges was the amount of
torque the jet engine was applying to the propeller. I don't know, but it may
have been based on strain gauges. The torque meters always seemed to be
accurate and stable.
Dennis
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
0126575x1222585087x1201462804/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd
JulystepsfooterNO62)
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: | Switch wiring conundrum |
Hello everyone-
I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out a way to control my EFI
injectors using a single 2-XX switch. I can't find a way to do what I want
to do (perhaps there is no way).
Here's what I'm trying to accomplish:
I have 2 banks of injectors. I need to be able to wire them such that I
have a single 3 position switch (Primary - Both - Secondary). That part is
easy enough using a 2-10. Here's the added trick: whenever Both is not
selected, I need to tie a certain line on the EFI to ground. (This lets the
EFI know one bank is offline & it automatically doubles the fuel flow
through the remaining bank.)
The suggested implementation from the EFI manufacturer is to wire each bank
to a 2-3. One side of 2-3 control whether the bank gets power, the other
side controls whether the EFI line ties to ground. When an injector bank
has failed, the pilot is "guessing" which bank to take offline. If he
guesses right, the engine smooths out & all is well for a no-sweat landing.
If he guesses wrong, the engine runs off & he must quickly restore power to
the bank he just turned off & remove power from the "other" bank. Using two
separate switches for this seems like a recipe for frantically flipping
switches to try to get the engine back on if the pilot guesses wrong. My
idea is that if it is a single pri-both-sec switch, it is much easier to
simply reverse the position of the single switch you already have a hold of
should the guess be wrong.
Hopefully someone is cleverer than I am and can figure out how to do this
without requiring 2 switches! Or, at least I can find out it is impossible
& I can resign myself to having two switches.
Thanks,
Mark
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: Switch wiring conundrum |
Hi Mark,
There isn't as much of a problem with the two switch solution as you
are imagining. When you turn off one bank and the engine doesn't run
better, you already have your hand on that switch and can immediately
turn it back on. Then just turn off the second switch (which is
probably, or should be, right next to it).
Bob W.
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:55:14 -0600
"Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone-
>
> I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out a way to control my EFI
> injectors using a single 2-XX switch. I can't find a way to do what I want
> to do (perhaps there is no way).
>
> Here's what I'm trying to accomplish:
>
> I have 2 banks of injectors. I need to be able to wire them such that I
> have a single 3 position switch (Primary - Both - Secondary). That part is
> easy enough using a 2-10. Here's the added trick: whenever Both is not
> selected, I need to tie a certain line on the EFI to ground. (This lets the
> EFI know one bank is offline & it automatically doubles the fuel flow
> through the remaining bank.)
>
> The suggested implementation from the EFI manufacturer is to wire each bank
> to a 2-3. One side of 2-3 control whether the bank gets power, the other
> side controls whether the EFI line ties to ground. When an injector bank
> has failed, the pilot is "guessing" which bank to take offline. If he
> guesses right, the engine smooths out & all is well for a no-sweat landing.
> If he guesses wrong, the engine runs off & he must quickly restore power to
> the bank he just turned off & remove power from the "other" bank. Using two
> separate switches for this seems like a recipe for frantically flipping
> switches to try to get the engine back on if the pilot guesses wrong. My
> idea is that if it is a single pri-both-sec switch, it is much easier to
> simply reverse the position of the single switch you already have a hold of
> should the guess be wrong.
>
> Hopefully someone is cleverer than I am and can figure out how to do this
> without requiring 2 switches! Or, at least I can find out it is impossible
> & I can resign myself to having two switches.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
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! --
|