Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:55 AM - Re: Re: Battery Cranking Amps (Kevin Klinefelter)
2. 06:56 AM - Encoder Certification ()
3. 09:33 AM - Does anyone have a source for these specialized Adel clamps (keithmckinley)
4. 09:45 AM - Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification (Kevin Carey)
5. 09:47 AM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (jonlaury)
6. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Encoder Certification (John Grosse)
7. 09:59 AM - Z13-8 questions (Tom Barter)
8. 12:01 PM - Re: Re: Battery Cranking Amps (Ken)
9. 04:51 PM - Z-13/8 (Mauri Morin)
10. 05:58 PM - OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator (grnord)
11. 08:35 PM - Battery replacement philosophies . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 09:33 PM - Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator (Etienne Phillips)
13. 09:37 PM - Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 09:37 PM - Re: Z-13/8 (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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cranking Amps |
I have a two alt one batt(pc680) syatem in my 914 powered Europa. I change
out the battery every other year. I modified our Subaru Legacy to take the
680. The two year old 680 cranks the Subaru fine for two years till I get a
new one for the plane.
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury@impulse.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 5:01 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
>
> 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 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: | Encoder Certification |
1/25/2010
Hello Angier Ames, You wrote 1) 2) and 3) below:
1) "Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled
airspace."
{Response} Not true for all controlled airspace -- just that airspace
identified in 91.215 (b). Can you show otherwise?
2) "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."
{Response} Not true because 14 CFR Section 215 (a) says exactly the
opposite. Read here:
"91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment
installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any
class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude
reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112
(Mode S)."
3) "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."
{Response} More than a bit misleading. The FAA requirements of proving "the
performance and environmental standards" of a TSO, or an alternate method of
complying with the requirements, for avionics are very extensive, demanding,
and expensive. This is why most of the altitude encoding EFIS' available to
the experimental amateur built community are not TSO'd. There is extensive
material in the aeroelectric list archives on the significance of
paragraph14 CFR 91.217, particularly 91.217 (b). Just help yourself.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
========================================================
Time: 07:07:12 AM PST US
From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ@comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 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: | Does anyone have a source for these specialized Adel |
clamps
They are self mounting swivel clamps.
http://www.adelwiggins.com/ProdDtl.cfm?pid=109
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283357#283357
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/109_210.jpg
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: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification |
/set mode = "dead horse"
/enable beat
On Jan 25, 2010, at 9:35 AM, <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 1/25/2010
>
> Hello Angier Ames, You wrote 1) 2) and 3) below:
>
> 1) "Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in
> controlled airspace."
>
> {Response} Not true for all controlled airspace -- just that
> airspace identified in 91.215 (b). Can you show otherwise?
>
> 2) "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."
>
> {Response} Not true because 14 CFR Section 215 (a) says exactly the
> opposite. Read here:
>
> "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
>
> (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
> conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder
> equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental
> requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-
> C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or
> the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S)."
>
> 3) "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."
>
> {Response} More than a bit misleading. The FAA requirements of
> proving "the performance and environmental standards" of a TSO, or
> an alternate method of complying with the requirements, for avionics
> are very extensive, demanding, and expensive. This is why most of
> the altitude encoding EFIS' available to the experimental amateur
> built community are not TSO'd. There is extensive material in the
> aeroelectric list archives on the significance of paragraph14 CFR
> 91.217, particularly 91.217 (b). Just help yourself.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather
> and understand knowledge."
>
> ========================================================
>
> Time: 07:07:12 AM PST US
> From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ@comcast.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 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: Battery Cranking Amps |
kevann(at)gotsky.com wrote:
> I have a two alt one batt(pc680) syatem in my 914 powered Europa. I change
> out the battery every other year. I modified our Subaru Legacy to take the
> 680. The two year old 680 cranks the Subaru fine for two years till I get a
> new one for the plane.
>
> Kevin
> ---
Thanks Kevin.
I've often thought that with the numbers of people that subscribe to the List and
who monitor this forum, there's got to be a market for 1 or 2 year old AGM
batteries like the Odysseys for those who opt for a two battery system like Z19
or 14 and are in their first year.
It always pained me thinking of tossing a perfectly good $100+ battery.
Your Subaru adaptation is a good way to get some use out of a normally superfluous
batt.
J
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283361#283361
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: RE: Encoder Certification |
I agree, Bob, and I thought the first couple of responses pretty well
covered the original question. The subsequent discussion has certainly
covered the subject of controlled airspace, but reminds me of a favorite
quote: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject"--Winston Churchill
John :-)
bobsv35b@aol.com wrote:
> 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:
>
> <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
>
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 |
|
Hi Bob,
As I prepare to begin wiring per Z13-8, I have two questions.
1) Using the B&C LR-3 regulator, can the bus voltage sense lead be placed on
the E-bus rather than on the main bus? In the very unlikely event of two
failures on one tank of fuel, would this also offer low voltage warning in
the if something in the SD-8 system would fail? I seem to recall this
question being raised some time ago, but could not locate it in the
archives.
2) The installation instructions for the SD-8 call for an inline fuse on
one of the output leads. I don't see this included in the Z13-8 diagrams.
Is there a reason that it is not shown?
Thanks,
Tom Barter
Kesley, IA
Avid Magnum
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: Battery Cranking Amps |
That is actually a nice thing about z-14 with small batteries such as
the Dekka units. Flog them until cranking is noticeably slower. See
which one is dead and put the new one on the most critical side. They
are still $100. batteries but they are fully consumed when replaced.
Ken
jonlaury wrote:
>
>
> kevann(at)gotsky.com wrote:
>> I have a two alt one batt(pc680) syatem in my 914 powered Europa. I change
>> out the battery every other year. I modified our Subaru Legacy to take the
>> 680. The two year old 680 cranks the Subaru fine for two years till I get a
>> new one for the plane.
>>
>> Kevin
>> ---
>
>
> Thanks Kevin.
> I've often thought that with the numbers of people that subscribe to the List
and who monitor this forum, there's got to be a market for 1 or 2 year old AGM
batteries like the Odysseys for those who opt for a two battery system like
Z19 or 14 and are in their first year.
> It always pained me thinking of tossing a perfectly good $100+ battery.
> Your Subaru adaptation is a good way to get some use out of a normally superfluous
batt.
> J
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283361#283361
>
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 |
|
Bob,
I'm planning to wire my RV8 with your Z-13/8 configuration.
My question is: can I use a single switch (2-3) to replace the two
swathes (1-3) Aux Alt on/off and the E-bus alternate feed? I can
envision no time when I would have one of those on and the other off.
Am I missing something?
Mauri Morin
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: | OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator |
I've been considering how to use a three-phase permanent-magnet alternator instead
of the single-phase units shown in the Z-figures and discussed in the AeroElectric
book. I'd like to put overvoltage protection upstream of the regulator-rectifier
but the three-phase output is delivered to it via three feed-wires
instead of the two from a single-phase PM stator. It seems that OV disconnect
relays in any two feed-lines would interrupt current from all three stator-coil
sets; the two AEC 9024-20 modules operating the relays would probably be
triggered at slightly different voltages due to component tolerances but an OV
event in the narrow window between those two voltages seems unlikely. I have
three questions:
(1) Have I overlooked something that makes the basic concept unworkable?
(2) What would be the consequences of an OV event that happened to open one
relay but not the other?
(3) Is it possible to control two relays with one AEC 9024-20?
If necessary I could go with a single OV disconnect relay downstream of the regulator
but that would leave that not-cheap regulator-rectifier vulnerable. Twinned
OV protection is cheaper than one fried regulator...
Rick Nordgarden
Council Bluffs IA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283444#283444
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: | Battery replacement philosophies . . . |
At 11:43 AM 1/25/2010, you wrote:
kevann(at)gotsky.com wrote:
> I have a two alt one batt(pc680) syatem in my 914 powered Europa. I change
> out the battery every other year. I modified our Subaru Legacy to take the
> 680. The two year old 680 cranks the Subaru fine for two years till I get a
> new one for the plane.
>
> Kevin
> ---
Thanks Kevin.
I've often thought that with the numbers of people that subscribe to
the List and who monitor this forum, there's got to be a market for 1
or 2 year old AGM batteries like the Odysseys for those who opt for a
two battery system like Z19 or 14 and are in their first year.
It always pained me thinking of tossing a perfectly good $100+ battery.
You don't HAVE to TOSS it if you have a way to TEST it.
The yearly rotation thing was suggested for folks who
wanted to exploit the low cost batteries while NOT piling
on costs of ownership for having to test them. I.e., the
$time$ for testing was more than the cost of a replacement
battery.
The options cited were to add things like an SD-8 and
plan an endurance bus that didn't take more than 8A.
Then run the battery 'til it craps. Or, invest in some
type of battery capacity checker and change out the
battery when it's contained energy drops below your
design goals for e-bus support.
If you're invested in $high$ batteries, then yes . . .
yearly change-out policy seems arbitrary and fails
to offer the best return on investment.
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: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator |
Hi Rick
Putting an OV module upstream of the regulator when using a permanent
magnet alternator is very likely to trip incessantly, as the regulator
keeps the voltage correct by dissipating the extra energy as heat,
unlike a field-coil alternator that actively modifies the voltage
generated by the alternator.
For that reason, I wouldn't think that it's possible to have an OV
event, other than with a regulator failure, and the only way to catch
that would be to stick the OV relay and module downstream of the
regulator, after the rectification has happened, and when you're
dealing with DC.
Now on a different note, wouldn't it be a good idea to stick the OV
relay upstream of the smoothing capacitor? I've seen one of those
70,000uF caps explode due to too much juice, and it's quite
impressive! My thinking is that if your regulator goes off the hook
and supplies the cap with 40V (or whatever the permanent magnet
alternator can generate), and that thing explodes in the cockpit, the
pilot is going to need a new set of underwear...
Thoughts?
Thanks
Etienne
On 26 Jan 2010, at 3:56 AM, grnord wrote:
> >
>
> I've been considering how to use a three-phase permanent-magnet
> alternator instead of the single-phase units shown in the Z-figures
> and discussed in the AeroElectric book. I'd like to put overvoltage
> protection upstream of the regulator-rectifier but the three-phase
> output is delivered to it via three feed-wires instead of the two
> from a single-phase PM stator. It seems that OV disconnect relays
> in any two feed-lines would interrupt current from all three stator-
> coil sets; the two AEC 9024-20 modules operating the relays would
> probably be triggered at slightly different voltages due to
> component tolerances but an OV event in the narrow window between
> those two voltages seems unlikely. I have three questions:
>
> (1) Have I overlooked something that makes the basic concept
> unworkable?
>
> (2) What would be the consequences of an OV event that happened
> to open one relay but not the other?
>
> (3) Is it possible to control two relays with one AEC 9024-20?
>
> If necessary I could go with a single OV disconnect relay downstream
> of the regulator but that would leave that not-cheap regulator-
> rectifier vulnerable. Twinned OV protection is cheaper than one
> fried regulator...
>
>
> Rick Nordgarden
> Council Bluffs IA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283444#283444
>
>
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: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator |
At 07:56 PM 1/25/2010, you wrote:
I've been considering how to use a three-phase permanent-magnet
alternator instead of the single-phase units shown in the Z-figures
and discussed in the AeroElectric book. I'd like to put overvoltage
protection upstream of the regulator-rectifier but the three-phase
output is delivered to it via three feed-wires instead of the two
from a single-phase PM stator. It seems that OV disconnect relays in
any two feed-lines would interrupt current from all three stator-coil
sets; the two AEC 9024-20 modules operating the relays would probably
be triggered at slightly different voltages due to component
tolerances but an OV event in the narrow window between those two
voltages seems unlikely. I have three questions:
(1) Have I overlooked something that makes the basic concept unworkable?
Don't want 2 ov sensors for reasons cited . . .
(2) What would be the consequences of an OV event that happened
to open one relay but not the other?
Not easily predicted . . .
(3) Is it possible to control two relays with one AEC 9024-20?
Yes, or get a two-pole relay. But two relays is workable too and
probably less expensive.
If necessary I could go with a single OV disconnect relay downstream
of the regulator but that would leave that not-cheap
regulator-rectifier vulnerable. Twinned OV protection is cheaper
than one fried regulator...
Agreed.
Rick Nordgarden
Council Bluffs IA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283444#283444
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
01/25/10 19:36:00
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 |
|
At 06:48 PM 1/25/2010, you wrote:
>Bob,
>I'm planning to wire my RV8 with your Z-13/8 configuration.
>My question is: can I use a single switch (2-3) to replace the two
>swathes (1-3) Aux Alt on/off and the E-bus alternate feed? I can
>envision no time when I would have one of those on and the other off.
Combined switching creates single point of failure
for two critical pathways. Suggest you stay with
two switches.
Bob . . .
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! --
|