AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Sun 01/24/10


Total Messages Posted: 22



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 03:37 AM - Re: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace (Matt Prather)
     2. 05:30 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (Bob Lee)
     3. 06:16 AM - Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace (Jon Finley)
     4. 06:19 AM - Re: Re: Encoder Certification (bobsv35b@aol.com)
     5. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace (bobsv35b@aol.com)
     6. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
     7. 07:07 AM - Re: Encoder Certification (Greenbacks, UnLtd.)
     8. 07:07 AM - Re: Encoder Certification (Greenbacks, UnLtd.)
     9. 08:10 AM - Re: Z-13/20 questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    10. 08:19 AM - Re: Re: Encoder Certification (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    11. 08:19 AM - Charting Uncontrolled Airspace ()
    12. 08:33 AM - Re: Re: Encoder Certification (Kelly McMullen)
    13. 08:41 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (Bob Lee)
    14. 10:11 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
    15. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (Bob McCallum)
    16. 02:54 PM - Encoder Certification ()
    17. 04:07 PM - [Fw: Re: Re: Encoder Certification] (Kelly McMullen)
    18. 04:28 PM - New alkaline cell source (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    19. 05:03 PM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (jonlaury)
    20. 05:07 PM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (jonlaury)
    21. 05:34 PM - Re: New alkaline cell source (Dennis Golden)
    22. 06:57 PM - Re: New alkaline cell source (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 03:37:08 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
    From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
    I don't know Bob.. Next thing you're going to say is that all you need to stay upright is needle, ball, and airspeed.. Ha! :) Matt- do not archive > Good Evening Mike, > > I have no knowledge at all concerning Australian regulations, but if you > have access to a list of US regulations you will find that what I said is > true. > > I hate to repeat it so often, but we do NOT need a transponder if we stay > out of class A, B, and C airspace and do not fly above ten thousand feet > MSL anywhere except when doing so would make us hit the terrain. In that > case, we can go above ten thousand without a transponder as long as we > stay > within 2500 feet of the ground.(We do NOT need a transponder to fly in > class > E airspace) We do NOT need a transponder for VFR flight. As others (I > think It was Kelly among others) have said, we can even fly IFR in the > areas I > listed as OK for VFR without a transponder. I am not recommending that as > a normal operation, but that was not the question that had been asked. > > In uncontrolled airspace, of which there is very little in the lower > forty-eight, we CAN fly IFR without a clearance. That is the only material > difference between Controlled and Uncontrolled airspace. Controlled only > refers > to IFR operations. There are other rules that tell us what we need in the > various categories of airspace. For example, class D requires that we > establish communication and get a clearance to go in there, but we do NOT > need a > transponder to fly in the class D controlled airspace unless it is within > a > class B or C associated airspace ring that does require a transponder. > > The vast majority of airspace in which we USA GA pilots fly can legally be > flown in without a transponder. > > As OC says, it is easiest to just read the pertinent portions of the > FARs. > It is all spelled out quite clearly in the regulations. and in fewer > words than it took me! <G> > > Any help at all? > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Downers Grove, IL USA > Stearman N3977A > > > In a message dated 1/23/2010 8:24:37 P.M. Central Standard Time, > mmayfield@ozemail.com.au writes: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mmayfield" > <mmayfield@ozemail.com.au> > > > bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote: >> Good Morning OC, >> A transponder is NOT required for VFR flight in the vast majority of > controlled airspace. >> >> Happy Skies, >> >> Old Bob > > Apologies for butting my Aussie nose into this quite interesting > discussion, but virtually all of our rules these days are based very > closely on FAA > regs for standardisation reasons, and they very clearly require the > carriage and operation of a transponder in Class A, B, C, and E airspace > (which is > pretty much all controlled airspace), unless you're VFR and are not > equipped with an electrical system capable of continuously powering one. > You can > get an exemption in certain circumstances at the discretion of individual > ATC units, but these are not exactly handed out in Cracker Jack boxes. > > I appreciate FAA regs may differ, but for a common garden-variety VFR > aircraft to not require a transponder in the majority of controlled > airspace > would seem highly unusual to me (as it kinda somewhat defeats the purpose > of > the airspace being actually controlled, ATC "control" applying to all > aircraft regardless of their category). > > Just food for thought. No offence intended to anyone. > > Mike > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283159#283159 > >


    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
    Time: 05:30:10 AM PST US
    From: "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
    Joe, Thank you very much for your comments (see response below), you've helped me improve my design. I made changes to the power distribution schematic and reposted the dirgram at http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm Regards, Bob Lee N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA USA 92% done only 67% to go! Joe Gores (user9253 [fran4sew@banyanol.com]) wrote: The fuel injector relay is missing a wire on the common contact. << The jumper from that contact to the relay coil was omitted. It's been fixed. >> There are two current paths between Battery Bus 2 and the Endurance Bus, one through a diode and one through a 10 amp fuse. Since the second path through the fuse does not have a diode in it, current from Battery Bus 1 can flow to Battery Bus 2. << Years ago I scored a bunch of AN-3160 circuit breaker switches for a buck each at Oshkosh. The symbol you identified as a fuse is in reality a guarded circuit breaker switch. As the note on the diagram states it is the E-bus alternate feed path. If the E-bus goes dark, open the guard and flip the alternate feed breaker. If the primary path E-bus feed through the diode is dark I don't see the backfeed issue as problematic. >> The ground power relay coil needs to have a diode in series with it to protect against reverse polarity. << I just looked at Z-31B again and realized what I did. I put the diode across the relay like a battery contactor. It's been fixed >> What is the purpose of the 5 amp breaker with two wires going to the ground power plug? << The breaker is in the ground path to the over voltage crowbar. The ground symbol was up in the crowbar area. I moved it down to the circuit breaker. I also changed the breaker to 2 amp rating per Z-31B. >> As drawn, the "Cross Contactor" is energized, but the indicator light is off. Did you intend that terminal 3 of the Cross Contactor Switch be grounded? I suggest that the top half of the "Cross Contactor" switch control the ground side of the fuel injector relay coil instead of the hot side, thus minimizing hot wires inside of the cockpit. Of course that change would require changing the indicator light circuit too. << The relay is actually the starter realy that coincidently controls the fuel injection cold start circuit. That is why it is on the hot side. I changed the cross connect light circuit to get it's power from the cross connect contactor. >>


    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
    Time: 06:16:22 AM PST US
    From: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
    Subject: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
    Bakerocb, Much more important than any of the airspace stuff - THANK YOU for your years of service. Jon > {Response} My personal work for the U. S. government consisted of 36 > years > on active duty in the US Navy and US Marine Corps as both enlisted and > officer fixing and flying airplanes and helicopters. I retired from > that > work in 1986.


    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
    Time: 06:19:33 AM PST US
    From: bobsv35b@aol.com
    Subject: Re: RE: Encoder Certification
    Good Morning John, As Always, It All Depends! <G> I think most of us would agree with your assessment. The subject came up when a homebuilder wanted to know if he could fly his transponder equipped airplane to another point to get it certified. That morphed into a discussion as to where a transponder is required. While most of us do opt to have an operating transponder on board, the fact remains that such a unit is NOT required in most of the airspace utilized by we GA pilots. Even in areas where a transponder IS required, there are procedures available that may allow a flight to be made with the transponder inoperative. And, why do we care? As OC says, it's all in the spirit of education. Since there are so many conflicting opinions, it appears that some education is required. Does that make any sense at all or do you still feel we were wasting your time? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove, IL Stearman N3977A (With a transponder) In a message dated 1/24/2010 12:08:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, grosseair@comcast.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Grosse <grosseair@comcast.net> This whole discussion has me totally exhausted. I personally don't understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder... unless, of course. you're smuggling drugs or are flying some WWI vintage rag bag with no electrical system. Then I get it, and why would you even care? John Grosse


    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
    Time: 06:26:19 AM PST US
    From: bobsv35b@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
    BINGO! Happy Skies, Old Bob Do Not Archive In a message dated 1/24/2010 5:38:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, mprather@spro.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net> I don't know Bob.. Next thing you're going to say is that all you need to stay upright is needle, ball, and airspeed.. Ha! :) Matt- do not archive


    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
    Time: 06:49:50 AM PST US
    From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
    Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
    Thank you very much for your comments (see response below), you've helped me improve my design. I made changes to the power distribution schematic and reposted the dirgram at http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm Regards, Bob Lee Bob, In taking a quick look at your diagram, it appears that your cross feed contactor will not work. You seem to have both sides of the contactor tied together and through a switch (start/xfeed switch) to ground. When you power this up a diode will vaporize. I haven't looked over the rest of the drawing. Roger


    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
    Time: 07:07:12 AM PST US
    From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
    Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead horse one more time. Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ TSO'd. So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c or TSO-C112. Angier Ames N4ZQ


    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
    Time: 07:07:12 AM PST US
    From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
    Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead horse one more time. Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ TSO'd. So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c or TSO-C112. Angier Ames N4ZQ


    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
    Time: 08:10:56 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
    AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1@gmail.com> Bob, You wrote regarding Z13/20: "Shouldn't have published it" Yes . . . it was not a well considered or tested recipe for success at the time of publication. I too had made the decision to use multiple alternators based on my electrically dependent 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 independent power supply. There is risk associated with cherry-picking features from multiple recipes for the purpose of crafting a new recipe. It begs to be sifted for the effects of single failures (if flight for hire or transport, double failures along with probability analysis). Finally, the value of a new recipe is traded against existing recipes for addressing design goals not easily addressed in existing recipes. Z13/20 was crafted and published without due diligence to these processes. 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. Z-9 was crafted to meet design goals offered by "Mr. Corvair Engines" and fine tuned to adopt legacy design goals for failure modes. Conversion packages for the VW would have similar electrical system issues as the Corvair. You've stated that you found Z13/8, Z-14 and I guess Z-9 inadequate to your design goals. Cruising your website offers and impression that your goals for the KR-2 are indeed extra-ordinary. I didn't have time to read all the details so correct me if I'm wrong . . . this is a highly experimental endeavor that uses a lot of designs and hardware from projects never before assembled in this combination on a single airplane . . . much less multiple airplanes. Not necessarily a "bad" idea. But it does suggest a long list of risks requiring a "fine-tuning" of the airplane before you can confidently launch on a series of long distance travels with high probability of care-free arrivals. This is not your grandpa's C-170. It will certainly test your skills as a multi-discipline, flight test engineer. From one who has participated in the flight testing and product development of very complex airplanes I can only caution that $time$ to test, de-bug, and re-design seems to go up with the exponentially with the number of "new ingredients" in your recipe for success. Of course, given the unforgiving nature of the aerodynamically supported machines, one hopes that new de-bugging tasks are not displaced by issues involving bent airplanes and/or broken bods. You can see my wiring diagram at: http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm This is a busy electrical system. It has virtually no legacy of design goals that birthed the Z-figures and is essentially a scratch design. It would take hours of conversation and mulling features to first understand why the system is designed this way and then ratify the ideas or suggest alternatives. This is something I cannot offer right now as I have more than I can handle for consulting clients already on the schedule. My best suggestion is that you adopt Z-13/8 as a system that gets its reliability from simplicity. My sense is that you are going to have a great deal on your plate getting other, much more risky details ironed out. Electrical SYSTEM failures are VERY SELDOM root cause of an unplanned arrival with the earth. Z-13/8 with a well maintained battery offers a rock solid energy generation and delivery platform. "Stirring" the recipe only adds risk for design error and complexity driven risk. I'm working an accident right now that happened for reasons involving a stirring of the recipe. An expensive, complex airplane carrying people hit the dirt for rudimentary lapses in judgement about electrical system architecture. There was always plenty of POWER available . . . but poorly conducted to critical components. I wish you well with your project. It's my best recommendation that you don't stack electrical uncertainties on top of the tasks before you. Bob . . .


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:19:17 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
    At 09:03 AM 1/24/2010, you wrote: >Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets >beat this dead horse one more time. I'm sorry that you feel exhausted . . . education is a laborious, exacting process that involves the best-we-know-how-to-do both as teachers and students. Further, teachers and students come in all forms of ability and knowledge. The greatest benefit to the community is not a fixed or predictable process. But as long as all participants are conducting themselves honorably, then relief from over-exertion is simple and obvious . . . don't show up for class. My wife has students that do that all the time! Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 08:19:51 AM PST US
    From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
    Subject: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
    1/24/2010 Hello Fellow Marine Old Bob, You wrote: "However, I do NOT see where controlled and uncontrolled airspace is pertinent to the discussion." Agreed -- airspace category identification on charts per se was not pertinent to the original posting, but that identification became of educational interest as postings went on. I don't think an audit trail of the entire sequence of postings on how this subject got all wrapped around the axle is desired by all readers -- so here is a condensed audit trail version: A) It all began with a posting by Steve Thomas (Msg # 48119 on Jan 16, 2010), using the subject "Encoder Certification" who wanted to know if he could fly away from his home base with his newly certified experimental amateur built airplane without an operating and certified transponder in order to have the appropriate transponder checks done at another location. B) Both you and I responded to his request (maybe some others as well) telling him how this was possible. Neither of us used the term "controlled airspace". C) Then on Jan 18, 2010 in #48141 Jon Finley wrote: "Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace." and leaving the impression that controlled airspace alone could possibly be the determining factor in whether or not an aircraft was required to be equipped with an operable coded transponder. D) You and I both responded in a supportive, but clarification manner to Jon. Then followed a series of transponder oriented postings by many that morphed into a discussion of controlled versus uncontrolled airspace transponder requirements that further morphed into a discussion of how controlled and uncontrolled airspace was depicted on our aviation charts. E) In that discourse on Jan20, 2010 in Msg #48158 Jon wrote: "......one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." F) I then attempted to clarify that chart related statement by changing the subject line to "Charting Uncontrolled Airspace" and pointing out the existence of the brown shaded uncontrolled airspace locations on the low altitude IFR charts which could not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart alone. Jon took exception to my clarification and we were launched off on an ongoing posting wrangle on that charting point using the new subject line . So you can see how we got from encoder certification into airspace depictions on charts. Maybe a bit messy sequence of events, and maybe not all directly related to this aeroelectric list venue, but still of some interest to those of us who fly in this country. I am mindful of the many readers of this list who may absorb what is written here without a challenging or questioning attitude and I am reluctant to let stand potentially misleading information. Semper Fidelis, 'OC' ====================================================== Time: 09:55:51 AM PST US From: bobsv35b@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace Good Morning OC, I, for one admire your tenacity and am glad you are helping to educate the rest of us. However, I do NOT see where controlled and uncontrolled airspace is pertinent to the discussion. As I understood the question, he wanted to know where a transponder was required. A transponder is NOT required for VFR flight in the vast majority of controlled airspace. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove. IL Stearman N3977A Never an officer, just a Corporal, USMC.


    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
    Time: 08:33:43 AM PST US
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    Subject: Re: Encoder Certification


    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
    Time: 08:41:39 AM PST US
    From: "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
    Roger (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS [mrspudandcompany@verizon.net]) wrote: In taking a quick look at your diagram, it appears that your cross feed contactor will not work. You seem to have both sides of the contactor tied together and through a switch (start/xfeed switch) to ground. When you power this up a diode will vaporize. Roger, I don't think you saw the cross connect light between ground and the cross connnect contactor positive. The cross connect light will limit current and prevent the diodes from vaporizing (assuming light and diode component values are sized appropriately). Regards, Bob Lee N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA USA 92% done only 67% to go!


    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
    Time: 10:11:13 AM PST US
    From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
    Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
    Roger, I don't think you saw the cross connect light between ground and the cross connnect contactor positive. The cross connect light will limit current and prevent the diodes from vaporizing (assuming light and diode component values are sized appropriately). Regards, Bob Lee Bob, My mistake, however, unless I am wrong again you will have the cross feed actuated whenever the battery masters are turned on due to the jumper between pins 1 & 3 of your Start/Xfeed switch. Roger


    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
    Time: 10:41:43 AM PST US
    From: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
    Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
    Hi Roger; Different Bob, but the starter/Xfeed switch depicted is a three position switch and with the switch in the "centre" position which is presumably intended to be the "normal" position the Xfeed is Off. Bob McC _____________________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER & JEAN CURTIS Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 1:08 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13/20 questions Roger, I don't think you saw the cross connect light between ground and the cross connnect contactor positive. The cross connect light will limit current and prevent the diodes from vaporizing (assuming light and diode component values are sized appropriately). Regards, Bob Lee Bob, My mistake, however, unless I am wrong again you will have the cross feed actuated whenever the battery masters are turned on due to the jumper between pins 1 & 3 of your Start/Xfeed switch. Roger


    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
    Time: 02:54:27 PM PST US
    From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
    Subject: Encoder Certification
    1/24/2010 Hello John Grosse, You wrote: "I personally don't understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder..." {Response} Recall that this thread began with a posting by Steve Thomas (Msg # 48119 on Jan 16, 2010 using the subject "Encoder Certification") who wanted to know if he could fly away from his home base with his newly certified experimental amateur built airplane without an operating and certified transponder in order to have the appropriate transponder checks done at another location. Sorry that it got so drawn out and exhausting as we initially tried to help him and then got bogged down while trying to clarify some subsequent postings. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ===================================================== Time: 10:04:57 PM PST US From: John Grosse <grosseair@comcast.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Encoder Certification This whole discussion has me totally exhausted. I personally don't understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder... unless, of course. you're smuggling drugs or are flying some WWI vintage rag bag with no electrical system. Then I get it, and why would you even care? John Grosse


    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
    Time: 04:07:07 PM PST US
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    Subject: Re: Encoder Certification]
    And just where do you find this encoder requirement? It isn't in 91.205(d), it isn't in 91.215 that I can see. Unless it is a very recent change, I've flown IFR both without a transponder and with one without encoder for many years. Just increases your reporting requirements and may slightly annoy the controller. Note flight plan equipment codes /X and /T are still valid. Obviously it limits you to non-Class B, C airports and below 10,000 ft. unless you get a waiver. Kelly Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote: > Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead > horse one more time. > Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled > airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or > 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be > certified/TSO'd. > > So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your > only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the > performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c > or TSO-C112. > > Angier Ames > N4ZQ >


    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
    Time: 04:28:05 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: New alkaline cell source
    I noticed a new line of "Members Mark" alkaline cells on a display kiosk at Sam's Club yesterday. AA cells for about 22.5 cents each, AAA cells for about 20.5 cents each. I've purchased both for immediate service. It's going to be some time before I can put any on uncle Bob's handy battery squeezer and measure their contained energy. But at this price, it seems unlikely that they'll not prove themselves to be of exemplary value. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================


    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
    Time: 05:03:16 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
    From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury@impulse.net>
    OK I'm abandoning my holy grail search for a lightweight Z-14. I don't want to spend $300 for 2 PC310's to find out that they won't crank my engine. I think I'll settle for Z-13/8 (with a 40amp stby; $350 less money, more amps and a 4.5 # penalty over the B&C PM alts that don't fit my Franklin engine) and I'll use a single PC680. I have accomodation for another 680 should I decide that I need the redundancy. A single 680 gives me about 45 mins with my Ebus load (longer than the dual 310's). I still save 7+ lbs over Z-19 and I like having the second alternator better than a second battery. No matter how frequently I tested my batteries, I know that with no alternator, I'm not going to be comfortable with a vague notion of how long I've got. I would head for an airport immediately. With a second alternator and battery reserve, a primary alternator failure, becomes a bother rather than something I have to make a go/no-go decision about. Other than the size of the alternator, and using two B&C LR-3 VR's, I see nothing in Z13/8 that I would change. Any observations/refinements appreciated. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283291#283291


    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
    Time: 05:07:26 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
    From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury@impulse.net>
    earl_schroeder(at)juno.co wrote: > Hi John, > Check the size ng?of the battery terminals. Some that I've tried were too small to accept the wire size required to carry starter current requirements. For instance, some would only accept a 6-32 size screw or a 1/4" push on tab. Earl Thanks Earl. You're right. The PC 310 use an M4 screw (#8-32 equiv). There's a pad for more contact, but the screw is pretty small to get decent clamping force applied. See the previous post. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283292#283292


    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
    Time: 05:34:10 PM PST US
    From: Dennis Golden <dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
    Subject: Re: New alkaline cell source
    Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> > > I noticed a new line of "Members Mark" alkaline cells > on a display kiosk at Sam's Club yesterday. AA cells > for about 22.5 cents each, AAA cells for about 20.5 > cents each. I've purchased both for immediate service. > > It's going to be some time before I can put any on > uncle Bob's handy battery squeezer and measure their > contained energy. But at this price, it seems > unlikely that they'll not prove themselves to be > of exemplary value. I've been going to send you this for quite a while, but just forgot about it. If you remember some time back, I sent you some Ultralast AA cells I purchased at Fry's Electronics for $15 per 100 cells. Your test showed the were inferior to some of the others, but at that cost you thought they showed OK value. As it ends up, about 10% to 15% have been dead (or very very low) from the package. That makes there value a lot less and I am staying away from them. Regards, Dennis -- Dennis Golden Golden Consulting Services, Inc.


    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
    Time: 06:57:10 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: New alkaline cell source
    > >I've been going to send you this for quite a while, but just forgot >about it. If >you remember some time back, I sent you some Ultralast AA cells I purchased at >Fry's Electronics for $15 per 100 cells. Your test showed the were inferior to >some of the others, but at that cost you thought they showed OK value. > >As it ends up, about 10% to 15% have been dead (or very very low) from the >package. That makes there value a lot less and I am staying away from them. Good data point. Thanks! We'll have to see how Sam's products work out. Given that they're carrying the Sam's Club logo, I suspect the suppliers had to jump some pretty tight hoops . . . Bob . . .




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    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! --