Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:27 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic (Bob Lee)
2. 04:34 AM - Aircraft Manufacturer ()
3. 06:38 AM - Charting Uncontrolled Airspace ()
4. 06:53 AM - Re: Fuesable Link (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:52 AM - Re: Encoder Certification (Terry Watson)
6. 09:52 AM - Give it a rest ()
7. 09:59 AM - Re: Planning (Jesse Jenks)
8. 10:12 AM - Battery Cranking Amps (jonlaury)
9. 10:53 AM - Re: Encoder Certification (Dj Merrill)
10. 10:54 AM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (rgent1224@aol.com)
11. 11:16 AM - Re: Planning (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 11:24 AM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 11:24 AM - Re: Fuesable Link (PaulR)
14. 11:44 AM - =?UTF-8?Q?FAA Inspector (was Re: Encoder ?= =?UTF-8?Q?Certification)? (jon@finleyweb.net)
15. 11:53 AM - Re: Re: Fuesable Link (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 11:56 AM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
17. 12:01 PM - Re: Re: Fuesable Link (Richard Tasker)
18. 12:45 PM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (rgent1224@aol.com)
19. 01:41 PM - Re: Planning (Jesse Jenks)
20. 02:20 PM - Re: Fuesable Link (PaulR)
21. 03:19 PM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (Bob Lee)
22. 04:03 PM - Re: Planning (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 04:09 PM - New product announcement: TCW Technologies (Bob-tcw)
24. 06:37 PM - FW: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace (jon@finleyweb.net)
25. 09:12 PM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (jonlaury)
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: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off |
topic
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification
- off topic
Old Bob
Be assured that many of us do read your comments!
Starting to drift off topic (so I modified it) but I would encourage
everyone to operate a transponder at all times even if you never talk to
ATC or are always in remote areas.
With $450. PCAS type anti collision units available it has to be safer
to operate a transponder. Even in an airport traffic circuit I find the
pcas sometimes has me straining to locate traffic when I haven't heard
any radio calls but I know there is a transponder nearby. Anybody never
had the wrong frequency tuned or forgot to make a transmission?
If something like a pcas confirms that a transponder is reporting the
same altitude as the altimeter, it has to be safer to have a transponder
turned on. There is a risk that both encoder and altimeter are reporting
the same erroneous altitude so certification does have safety value as
well as legal value. Many of us fly enough formation or could do the
manometer test to rule out that risk though.
Much of the time and dollars spent chasing static system leaks is
irrelevant in real world operation for non pressurized aircraft. A leak
that makes the test impossible is usually insignificant in normal ops
with an unpressurized aircraft. Small leak - hook test equipment
directly to encoder and let the owner deal with the leak later.
I suspect that the overall air traffic system safety risk from operating
a transponder that is reporting accurate altitude but may fail other
certification parameters is essentially nil. Anybody know different??
Would relaxed certification requirements reduce safety or would it make
transponder ownership more affordable and actually increase safety?
It is not the cost of a transponder (or 406 ELT) that keeps some of us
from upgrading. It is the continuing cost of ownership (certification
costs) that adds little value to us or other airspace users.
Ken
bobsv35b@aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Bill,
>
> I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify
> the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified
> by a properly rated shop.
>
> However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is
> required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is
> VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those
> few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT
> required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away
> from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy.
>
> Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and
> stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder.
>
> This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the
> previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint
> and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something
> which is not required by the appropriate authority.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Downers Grove, IL
> Stearman N3977A
>
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: | Aircraft Manufacturer |
1/22/2010
Hello Jim Ayers, You wrote:
1) "What did you put on the 8050-1 form you sent to FAA Oklahoma City to
register your air
craft?"
{Response} I put my name.
2) "There is no BUILDER block on the aircraft registration form."
{Response} That is correct.
Similarly only the term MANUFACTURER rather than BUILDER appears in many
other generic FAA forms that are used in the process of getting our
experimental amateur built aircraft through the FAA administrative wickets
of purchasing, registration, and certification. To wit:
Form 8050-2, AIRCRAFT BILL OF SALE
Form 8050-3, CERTIFICATE OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
Form 8050-88, IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ASSIGNMENT AND REGISTRATION OF
AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. (This form refers to the "bill of sale from
manufacturer of the kit" -- they mean the company that created the kit from
which the aircraft is built.)**
Form 8050-110, CONFIRMATION OF RESERVATION OF UNITED STATES REGISTRATION
NUMBER.
The use of these generic FAA forms in the process and the use of the term
MANUFACTURER in those generic forms and on the FAA web site does not make
the builder of an amateur built experimental aircraft into an approved
aircraft manufacturer in the eyes of the FAA.
This fact is made abundantly clear in the FAA Form 8130-7 SPECIAL
AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE for each individual experimental amateur built
aircraft when the MANUFACTURER block is filled with N/A (Not Applicable) and
the BUILDER block is filled with the builder's name by the FAA
Representative who fills out and signs the form.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
**PS: Note that this same form number 8050-88 is use for a different FAA
form AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP FOR AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT which does use the
term "Builder's Name". I guess the FAA was running short of money and could
not afford different numbers for these two different forms.
==================================================
Time: 09:23:27 AM PST US
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification
From: lessdragprod@aol.com
Hi All,
I just checked the FAA records: William E. Boyd, Jr is the "manufacturer"
of a RV-6A.
There is no BUILDER block on the aircraft registration form. What did you
put on the 8050-1 form you sent to FAA Oklahoma City to register your air
craft? I think this is the first form the FAA sees for a new homebuilt.
Jim Ayers
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: | Charting Uncontrolled Airspace |
1/22/2010
Hello Jon, You wrote:
1) "Oh brother.."
{Response} Hang in there for one more go around. This time we will restrict
the discussion to just charting of uncontrolled airspace and leave
transponders out of it since that subject seems to make some peoples' head
hurt.
2) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFRchart) to
see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." and
"RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page:
http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm"
{Response} Just looking at a Sectional chart alone and the web site diagram
does not permit one to see where all true uncontrolled airspace exists. Here
is why:
A) The AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRSPACE Legend portion of current Sectional
charts has this wording in it:
"Only the controlled and reserved airspace effective below 18,000 ft. MSL
are shown on this chart." This means that the location of lateral areas of
uncontrolled Class G airspace that go from the surface up to 14,500 feet can
not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart.
B) The AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES AND AIRSPACE INFORMATION on a current IFR
ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart has these wordings in it under AIRSPACE
INFORMATION:
"Open area (white) indicates controlled airspace (Class E); unless otherwise
indicated."
"All airspace 14,500' and above is controlled (Class E)"
"Shaded area (brown) indicates uncontrolled airspace below 14,500' (Class
G)"
So one needs both Sectional and IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts to
completely determine where all uncontrolled Class G airspace is located.
The Sectional chart will tell one where the controlled Class E airspace
exists both laterally by an outline and vertically by either magenta or blue
shading, but won't tell one where the the lateral dimensions of uncontrolled
Class G airspace are.
The IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart, by brown shading, will show one where
uncontrolled Class G airspace exists laterally from the surface up to
14,500.
Why don't you get an IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart for some areas out west
where there is some brown shading, check it out, and let us know what you
find. Our IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts back east are all white between
the navigation information.
Thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
=================================================
From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
Subject: RE: Encoder Certification
Oh brother..
Apparently this discussion has went around and around enough times that what
is being said no longer makes sense to anyone.
Next subject please!
Jon
=======================================
Jon Finley wrote:
RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page:
http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm
Jon
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: Fuesable Link |
At 10:15 AM 1/21/2010, you wrote:
>
>I'm trying to find a place to purchase the silicone sleeving to make
>some fuse links out of. Anyone have any ideas? I'd buy the kits
>from B&C but I need some 26GA for the shunt.
I have a couple thousand feet of 24AWG which would
pair up nicely with 20AWG leadwires for your shunt.
Shoot me a mailing address directly.
It's hard to find short pieces of the silicone over
fiberglass.
http://www.atkinsandpearce.com/Coated_Insulation_Products/Ben-Har/
I used to buy it in 500' spools. I'm sure B&C does too.
But short chunks in the marketplace are rare.
The kits from B&C are probably a pretty good deal.
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: | Encoder Certification |
So since you don't want to read it, none of the rest of us should be allowed
to? This is how these lists lose the most informed and thoughtful
participants. How about showing a little respect for the rest of us ...
Dude.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Young
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
Dude... Give it a rest. I've exercised the delete key way too often. I'm
gone.
>
> 1/21/2010
>
> Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied
> below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled
> airspace in your area.
>
> Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that
> charting regard I would like to again remind all of the
> readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled
> airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an
> aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder.
>
> I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to
> requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of
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 |
|
1/22/2010
Hello Greg Young, You wrote: "Give it a rest."
I agree -- I'm gone too.
Some people have controlled airspace and transponder requirement and
uncontrolled airspace and transponder non requirement so hard wired into
their brain that no facts can change their mind.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
========================================================
"Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 21, 2010
Dude... Give it a rest. I've exercised the delete key way too often. I'm
gone.
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 |
|
Thanks Bob=2C
yeah=2C I forgot to mention I decided to omit the starter contactor and wil
l use the built in one.
Jesse
From: nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Planning
At 01:32 PM 1/21/2010=2C you wrote:
Hopefully this is a dumb question:
With an aft battery installation=2C does the main bus feed wire come from
the starter?
Battery side of the starter contactor. Or if the
contactor is built into the starter=2C yes=2C right
from the starter.
Also=2C does the crankcase ground strap connect to the firewall forest
of tabs ground bus through bolt=2C or does it need its own more substantial
bracket to bolt to?
To the bolt.
Bob . . .
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s powerful SPAM protection.
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: | Battery Cranking Amps |
Anybody have a method for determining cranking amps necessary for a specific engine?
Mine's a 10.5:1 350in 6 cyl
I found this site with a CCA calculator and other useful engine stuff.
http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html
Trusting but verifying.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282917#282917
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: Encoder Certification |
On 1/22/2010 12:41 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
>
> So since you don't want to read it, none of the rest of us should be allowed
> to? This is how these lists lose the most informed and thoughtful
> participants. How about showing a little respect for the rest of us ...
> Dude.
Thank you Terry, I feel the same way. I've been reading these posts
with much interest.
I admit to being very curious what "advice" Jon Finley offered to the
FAA inspector, and am hoping he is willing to elaborate... :-)
I believe the Constitution guarantees the right of free travel, and
does not limit what mode of travel we can use. From my perspective,
flying is a Constitutional Right, not a privilege.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
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: Battery Cranking Amps |
Would like to look at this site but this is what I get when I log onto it
"You don't have permission to access /auto.html on this server. "
Thanks
Dick
In a message dated 1/22/2010 12:13:47 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jonlaury@impulse.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury" <jonlaury@impulse.net>
Anybody have a method for determining cranking amps necessary for a
specific engine? Mine's a 10.5:1 350in 6 cyl
I found this site with a CCA calculator and other useful engine stuff.
http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html
Trusting but verifying.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282917#282917
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 |
|
At 11:55 AM 1/22/2010, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob,
>yeah, I forgot to mention I decided to omit the starter contactor
>and will use the built in one.
Understand. Then the BAT terminal on your starter becomes
the forward power distribution point. Your alternator b-lead
would tie in there too.
Consider an ANL current limiter for the alternator B-lead
where the BAT end of the limiter base could become the
distribution point. This would prevent piling all those
wires on one terminal out on the engine.
Bob . . .
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: Battery Cranking Amps |
At 12:10 PM 1/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>Anybody have a method for determining cranking amps necessary for a
>specific engine? Mine's a 10.5:1 350in 6 cyl
>I found this site with a CCA calculator and other useful engine stuff.
>
>http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html
>
>Trusting but verifying.
The "cranking amps" ratings of batteries are generally
not high on the priority of items in system design goals.
Weight, size, ease of installation, cost of ownership,
and other features usually set decision process in
OBAM aircraft. Cranking amps for an engine is pretty
whispy too . . . it depends on tightness of the engine,
temperature, viscosity of oil, motor efficiency, gear
ratios, wire sizes, etc.
In other words, I'll suggest you start with a 3 x 6 x 6"
SVLA, 17-20 a.h. battery with expansion room for upsizing later. See
how that fits with YOUR notions of satisfactory performance.
A new battery that size will get your engine going with
about any of the modern starters. The question that drives
an up-sizing decision is how often you need to replace the
battery for the environment and missions you fly.
MOST builders are happy with that size battery.
Bob . . .
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: Fuesable Link |
Bob,
I really appreciate the offer, but I think I'll just buy some from B&C. The reason
I was looking for the 26ga is the wires that came with the Dynon harness
for the shunt are 22 ga. I think it might be easier to replace the ones in the
harness with 20ga then use the 24ga fuseable links from B&C.
They say I can also put a 1A inline fuse, but I can't seem to find any of them
made with anything but PVC coated wire, and that doesn't seem to be a very good
idea.
Thanks again
--------
Paul Rose
N417PR (res)
RV-9A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282934#282934
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: Encoder ?= =?UTF-8?Q?Certification)? |
=0AHi Dj,=0A =0AI recieved that some question offline from a couple folks s
o might as well report...=0A=0ABasically I just gave him the 'ole Top Gun "
Bullshit!" "cough" and suggested that he needed to do some research to find
out what individual rights are provided by the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution.=0A =0ASomeone that is less anti-authority and more "
debate/discussion" oriented (I'm an ass) would probably stick around and di
scuss this with him. Discussing Constitutional rights with the local FAA i
nspector did not strike me as a "valuable" way to spend my time.=0A =0AJon
=0A =0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
=0ASent: Friday, January 22, 2010 11:41am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics
.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification=0A=0A--> AeroE
lectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>=0A=0AOn 1/22/201
0 12:41 PM, Terry Watson wrote:=0A> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by
: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>=0A> =0A> So since you don't want to r
ead it, none of the rest of us should be allowed=0A> to? This is how these
lists lose the most informed and thoughtful=0A> participants. How about sho
wing a little respect for the rest of us ...=0A> Dude.=0A=0A=0AThank you Te
rry, I feel the same way. I've been reading these posts=0Awith much interes
t.=0A=0AI admit to being very curious what "advice" Jon Finley offered to t
he=0AFAA inspector, and am hoping he is willing to elaborate... :-)=0A=0AI
believe the Constitution guarantees the right of free travel, and=0Adoes no
t limit what mode of travel we can use. From my perspective,=0Aflying is a
Constitutional Right, not a privilege.=0A=0A-Dj=0A=0A-- =0ADj Merrill - N1J
OV=0AGlastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman
================0A=0A=0A=0A
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: Fuesable Link |
>
>They say I can also put a 1A inline fuse, but I can't seem to find
>any of them made with anything but PVC coated wire, and that doesn't
>seem to be a very good idea.
Not a big deal. There are tens of thousands of airplanes
flying with nylon over PVC wire in them . . . a few thousand
more with cotton over rubber . . . they're not falling out
of the air trailing smoke nor gassing their occupants with
the byproducts of inflight fires.
The short pieces of PVC on the ends of the fuse holders
represents no significant risk.
I'd go with the fuses. Lap slice them onto the end of
your harness wires like . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
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: | Battery Cranking Amps |
I was able to get right on without a problem.
Roger
Would like to look at this site but this is what I get when I log onto
it
"You don't have permission to access /auto.html on this server. "
Thanks
Dick
In a message dated 1/22/2010 12:13:47 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jonlaury@impulse.net writes:
<jonlaury@impulse.net>
Anybody have a method for determining cranking amps necessary for a
specific
engine? Mine's a 10.5:1 350in 6 cyl
I found this site with a CCA calculator and other useful engine stuff.
http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html
Trusting but verifying.
John
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: | Re: Fuesable Link |
I have some pieces of 26ga aircraft wire if you want them. Let me know
what you need and your address and I will stick it into an envelope.
Dick
PaulR wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "PaulR"<prose@panhandle.rr.com>
>
> Bob,
> I really appreciate the offer, but I think I'll just buy some from B&C. The
reason I was looking for the 26ga is the wires that came with the Dynon harness
for the shunt are 22 ga. I think it might be easier to replace the ones in
the harness with 20ga then use the 24ga fuseable links from B&C.
>
> They say I can also put a 1A inline fuse, but I can't seem to find any of them
made with anything but PVC coated wire, and that doesn't seem to be a very good
idea.
>
> Thanks again
>
> --------
> Paul Rose
> N417PR (res)
> RV-9A
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282934#282934
>
>
>
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: Battery Cranking Amps |
Must be an AOL thingy - went to firefox and loaded OK
Thanks
Dick
In a message dated 1/22/2010 1:58:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mrspudandcompany@verizon.net writes:
http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html
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 |
|
Great!
Thanks again. I had been visualizing the ANL setup that you suggest as one
possibility. It makes a lot of sense=2C especially since the ANL seems to b
e you're preferred method of protecting the b-lead. What the other option h
as going for it is a real short b-lead wire directly from alt. to starter.
Of course then I'm forced to use an inline fuse.
I'm leaning toward an ANL on the firewall.
> Date: Fri=2C 22 Jan 2010 13:14:44 -0600
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> From: nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Planning
>
kolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 11:55 AM 1/22/2010=2C you wrote:
> >Thanks Bob=2C
> >yeah=2C I forgot to mention I decided to omit the starter contactor
> >and will use the built in one.
>
> Understand. Then the BAT terminal on your starter becomes
> the forward power distribution point. Your alternator b-lead
> would tie in there too.
>
> Consider an ANL current limiter for the alternator B-lead
> where the BAT end of the limiter base could become the
> distribution point. This would prevent piling all those
> wires on one terminal out on the engine.
>
> Bob . . .
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free=2C trusted and rich email service.
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: Fuesable Link |
Dick,
I appreciate the offer. I've already got the fuse holders and that's the first
thing on the plan for the weekend.
Thanks to all who have gone before me, and are willing to teach. I'm hoping someday
to be able to "pay it forward".
--------
Paul Rose
N417PR (res)
RV-9A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282968#282968
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: Z-13/20 questions |
Bob,
You wrote regarding Z13/20: "Shouldn't have published it"
I too had made the decision to use multiple alternators based on my
electrically depandent engine, I also have a design goal of no single point
of failure in the electrical system, so I decided on a light weight version
of Z14 for basic power distribution and an overlay of Z13 for main-bus and
E-bus. I like Z13 for it's simplicity of operation, and Z14 for it's
indepandant power supply. I submitted a wiring diagram that you stated you
were "praying over" a while back. Seems like I have fallen into an area
similar to John <jonlaury@impulse.net> so I thought I would probe you again.
In your last post regarding my inquiry you said to use Z9 which seemed to
address other issues. I figured you were just busy with moving so I didn't
pursue the issue at the time. Since John has asked a very similar question,
perhaps you could give us your opinion of using Z14 for battery bus, starter
and alternator, and then a main-bus and e-bus from there as with Z13. I
like this appriach because the inflight troubleshooting is eliminated.
Using a low voltage checklist you can get to stable operation in a few
seconds after a low voltage envent is detected on either battery bus. You
can see my wiring diagram at: http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm.
Thanks for all you do to help us understand what trade offs we play in
making our electrical decisions.
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
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 |
|
At 03:05 PM 1/22/2010, you wrote:
>Great!
>Thanks again. I had been visualizing the ANL setup that you suggest
>as one possibility. It makes a lot of sense, especially since the
>ANL seems to be you're preferred method of protecting the b-lead.
>What the other option has going for it is a real short b-lead wire
>directly from alt. to starter. Of course then I'm forced to use an inline fuse.
>I'm leaning toward an ANL on the firewall.
I think that would be my choice as it
handles logistics for a power distribution
point nicely.
Bob . . .
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: | New product announcement: TCW Technologies |
Fellow RV builders,
TCW Technologies, is pleased to introduce our newest product, Integrated
Back-up Battery System (IBBS).
IBBS is a complete back-up battery solution for powering critical
electronics such as EFIS, GPS, Autopilots and Engine monitors. The IBBS
product combines a rechargeable ni-mh battery, a smart charger circuit
and the transfer switch in a single enclosure that is easy to install
and only 1/2 the weight of a comparable lead acid battery.
The IBBS provides about 1 hour of back-up endurance for typical EFIS and
GPS systems; additionally, it includes surge suppression and allows
systems to operational before and during engine cranking.
The IBBS system is very easy to install and eliminates other field
installed components such as transfer contactors and diodes.
The IBBS product has been tested by Garmin for use with their G3x series
of products.
For all the details please visit our web site: www.tcwtech.com
Thanks,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
rv-10 40176
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: | FW: RE: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace |
=0AOops, hit reply and it only went to Bob instead of the list....=0A=0A=0A
-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: jon@finleyweb.net=0ASent: Friday, Januar
y 22, 2010 12:11pm=0ATo: bakerocb@cox.net=0ASubject: RE: Charting Uncontrol
led Airspace=0A=0A=0A=0ABakerocb,=0A =0AApparently I am a terrible glutten
for punishment. It is no wonder folks on the list are asking for
this nonsense to stop. As an aside, do you work for the government??=0A
=0A1. For some reason you seem to believe that nobody understands this (whe
n is a transponder required). WE ALL GET IT! It is very simple (it has bee
n said repeatedly, read CFR 91.215 (b)).=0A =0A2.A. So, if only "controlled
airspace" is shown then "uncontrolled airspace" cannot be shown?? That ma
kes no sense. "Uncontrolled airspace" is everything that is NOT controlled.
Using these generic terms ("controlled" and "uncontrolled" makes this ent
ire section worthless).=0A =0AThis part is getting really old.... On a sec
tional: =0AClass B, C, and D indicate where the "controlled airspace" exten
ds to the ground (and much more).=0A =0AThe lowest floor of Class E is 700'
AGL. The shaded magenta lines show where the floor of Class E changes from
700' AGL to 1,200' AGL. The shaded blue lines show where the floor of Clas
s E changes from 1200' AGL to 14,500' AGL. The staggered blue lines (e.g.
"----___---___-----___----") show where the floor of the Class E airspace i
s when this cannot be depicted by the shaded blue or magenta lines. These s
taggered blue lines either specify the floor of the Class E airspace or it
is 14,500' MSL.=0A=0AClass G airspace exists UNDER Class E (at a minimum, p
ossibly more, I'm not sure). =0A =0A2.B. We agree that Class G airspace ex
ists UNDER the floor of Class E airspace. THIS IS DEPICTED ON A SECTIONAL.
You do not need an IFR chart to see this.=0A =0AAdditionally, a low level
IFR chart does NOT depict the areas in which the floor of the Class E is at
a non-standard (14,500' MSL) altitude. This means that the pilot could THI
NK, because the chart is showing "white", that Class E exists to 1,200' AGL
when it does not (rather, it may end at 12,500' AGL, for example).=0A =0A
=0AWhy don't YOU do the research instead of asking me to do it? Better sti
ll, do this research BEFORE responding. I have given you the resource (Sky
vector.com) to see any sectional and IFR chart in the USA. I'll even give
you a tip - look at the two charts in the area around Gallup, NM (GUP).=0A
=0AJon=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: bakerocb@cox.net=0AHello Jon
, You wrote:=0A=0A1) "Oh brother.."=0A=0A{Response} Hang in there for one m
ore go around. This time we will restrict =0Athe discussion to just chartin
g of uncontrolled airspace and leave =0Atransponders out of it since that s
ubject seems to make some peoples' head =0Ahurt.=0A=0A2) ".............. on
e has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFRchart) to =0Asee where true "
uncontrolled airspace" exists." and=0A=0A"RE: #2. Look at the Class E secti
on of this page:=0A=0Ahttp://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm"=0A=0A{Response
} Just looking at a Sectional chart alone and the web site diagram =0Adoes
not permit one to see where all true uncontrolled airspace exists. Here =0A
is why:=0A=0AA) The AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRSPACE Legend portion of current
Sectional =0Acharts has this wording in it:=0A=0A"Only the controlled and r
eserved airspace effective below 18,000 ft. MSL =0Aare shown on this chart.
" This means that the location of lateral areas of =0Auncontrolled Class G
airspace that go from the surface up to 14,500 feet can =0Anot be determine
d by looking at a Sectional chart.=0A=0A=0AB) The AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES AND
AIRSPACE INFORMATION on a current IFR =0AENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart has the
se wordings in it under AIRSPACE =0AINFORMATION:=0A=0A"Open area (white) in
dicates controlled airspace (Class E); unless otherwise =0Aindicated."=0A
=0A"All airspace 14,500' and above is controlled (Class E)"=0A=0A"Shaded ar
ea (brown) indicates uncontrolled airspace below 14,500' (Class =0AG)"=0A
=0ASo one needs both Sectional and IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts to =0Aco
mpletely determine where all uncontrolled Class G airspace is located.=0A
=0AThe Sectional chart will tell one where the controlled Class E airspace
=0Aexists both laterally by an outline and vertically by either magenta or
blue =0Ashading, but won't tell one where the the lateral dimensions of unc
ontrolled =0AClass G airspace are.=0A=0AThe IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart,
by brown shading, will show one where =0Auncontrolled Class G airspace exi
sts laterally from the surface up to =0A14,500.=0A=0AWhy don't you get an I
FR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart for some areas out west =0Awhere there is som
e brown shading, check it out, and let us know what you =0Afind. Our IFR EN
ROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts back east are all white between =0Athe navigation
information.=0A=0AThanks.=0A=0A=0A'OC' Says: "The best investment we can m
ake is the effort to gather and =0Aunderstand knowledge."=0A=0A====
======================0A=0AFrom:
"Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>=0ASubject: RE: Encoder Certification=0A
nt around and around enough times that what=0Ais being said no longer makes
sense to anyone.=0A=0ANext subject please!=0A=0A=0AJon=0A=0A====
============0A=0AJon Finley wrote:=0A=0ARE: #2. Look
at the Class E section of this page:=0A=0Ahttp://www.flytandem.com/airspace
.htm=0A=0AJon =0A=0A
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: Battery Cranking Amps |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 12:10 PM 1/22/2010, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> In other words, I'll suggest you start with a 3 x 6 x 6"
> SVLA, 17-20 a.h. battery with expansion room for upsizing later.
> Bob . . .
Per your suggestion of using smaller batteries to make a lightweight Z14, I looked
at the Odyssey PC 310. With two of them I'd have 620 amps for 5 seconds (wondering
how many engine start trys I get). According to the website that I linked
in my original post, I need 427amps to spin my 6cyl 350 in. engine. The PC310
(6lbs) is an 8AH battery with a 25 amp discharge capability of 9 minutes.
Two of them gets me about 1/2 hr @ 12 amps, which is what my 2 no frills battery
buses and E bus need. Having 2 alternators makes me OK with this minimum size
battery bank and this light weight Z14 weighs less than the Z19 with 2 17AH
batts by about 10 lbs.
What am I overlooking
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283034#283034
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! --
|