---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 02/25/10: 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:33 AM - Re: Official color of levers (JOHN TIPTON) 2. 03:04 AM - Re: Official color of levers (mmayfield) 3. 05:58 AM - Re: Official color of levers (glen matejcek) 4. 06:43 AM - Re: GPU connection philosophy WAS: Re: GPU for Piper (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 06:48 AM - Re: GNS430 Wire Book (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 06:58 AM - Re: Re: Official color of levers (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS) 7. 07:26 AM - Re: Figure Z? (user9253) 8. 08:59 AM - Re: Re: Official color of levers (Matt Prather) 9. 09:11 AM - Re: Re: Official color of levers (rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us) 10. 10:46 AM - Clearing some away some fog and fuzzy logic . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 12:24 PM - Re: GPU connection philosophy WAS: Re: GPU for Piper (John McMahon) 12. 02:19 PM - Re: Re: RFC: My external power schematic (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 13. 03:54 PM - Re: GPU connection philosophy WAS: Re: GPU for Piper (Peter Pengilly) 14. 07:54 PM - Z-11 Question (David Nelson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:33:39 AM PST US From: "JOHN TIPTON" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Official color of levers Hi Guys And what colours (colors) are recommended for the various warning lights Regards John (England) ----- Original Message ----- From: rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us To: AeroelectricList Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:10 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Official color of levers Is there an official listing of color to be used on balls or knobs for control levers? I think Black for throttle, Blue for prop, Red for mixture. How about cowl flap, choke, wheel brake, glider airbrake and doors? If not official, what would standard practice for color be for cowl flap, choke, wheel brake, glider airbrake and door? I want to have my aluminum balls and knobs anozied and there are plenty of colors to choose from sooooo.... Thx. Ron Parigoris ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:04:09 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Official color of levers From: "mmayfield" I'm not aware of any mandatory standard colour code convention for cockpit controls. Take a browse through some cockpit photos and you will see. Some are decidedly uncolourful! There are however conventions which are generally adhered to when colour is used. They generally fall in an order of importance. Red is vital (examples may be fuel/oil shutoff valves, anything which will stop your engine running if it's not in the right spot, fire extinguisher handles). Yellow is important (examples may be canopy latches, park brake lever, something which could cause embarrassment or damage if it's not in the right spot). Anything else doesn't matter too much. As for lights - the design follows a pattern of urgency and the convention is widely adhered to in my experience: Red: You need to take positive action now (eg - fire detected, you've just stalled). Amber: You need to take action pretty soon (eg - low/overvoltage, door unlocked, something has low pressure when it shouldn't). Green/Blue/White: I'm telling you something you might like to know (eg - gear down). Even the modern EICAS/glass planes are designed like this with their messaging systems. Red is bad & you better do something pronto. Amber is important, but probably won't kill you just yet. White is just telling you something. Green is the gear down & locked. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=288109#288109 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:58:25 AM PST US From: "glen matejcek" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Official color of levers Subject: AeroElectric-List: Official color of levers HI Ron- In a glider, flaps are grey, speed / air / dive brakes are blue, and canopy release / jettison are red. Wheel brakes are typically either a metallic bicycle brake-type affair mounted just below the stick grip or are incorporated into the dive brake at the extreme end of the deploy travel. >Is there an officiallisting ofcolor to be used on balls or >knobs for control levers? >I think Black for throttle, Blue for prop, >Red for mixture. How about cowl flap, choke, wheel brake, glider airbrake >and doors? >If not official, what would standard practice for color be >for cowl flap, choke, wheel brake, glider airbrake and door? I want to >have my aluminum balls and knobs anozied and there are plenty of colors to >choose from sooooo.... >Thx. >Ron Parigoris glen matejcek aerobubba@earthlink.net ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:58 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: GPU connection philosophy WAS: AeroElectric-List: Re: GPU for Piper At 11:30 PM 2/24/2010, you wrote: >Bob, Could you expand on the two philosophies or point me to a >further discussion. I've been wrestling with both ways and each >time I decide one way, I think about it some more and change my >mind...again? Is either choice superior or is it six of one and >half a dozen of the other? If you hook ground power to the battery side of the GP_Contactor, you can charge the battery without powering up the aircraft. Further, you would not be able to hook ground power to the aircraft WITHOUT having the battery on line as well. This would be my preferred configuration. Production TC do it both ways but predominantly the OTHER way. I'm mystified as to the rationale for doing it the other way . . . somebody made that decision long before my time and isn't around to explain it any more. I'm unable to deduce any advantage that would give it precedence over the first way. I am presuming that they had a "good" reason but I don't know what it is. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:48:04 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GNS430 Wire Book At 11:41 PM 2/24/2010, you wrote: >I'm still trying to sort out my GNS430W's lack of comm. I had the >unit bench tested here locally, and it works just fine at the >avionics shop, so the issue must be my wiring somewhere. The wire >book for AGATE that I've downloaded shows the 430 being hooked up >through the GMA340. All I want to use is a simple Sigtronics >intercom; no audio panel. > >The Sigtronics does not have "audio low" or "mic low" inputs. I >believe I read somewhere that these are to be grounded, so that's >what I did, but I can't find that reference right now. Yes . . . when those pins are not available as dedicated inputs, use signal or power grounds as close to the intercom's cable connector as practical . . . > The Garmin manual (4.7.2.3) states that they're balanced inputs, > and that both must be connected. I'm a bit wary of experimenting > willy-nilly with this radio, so I haven't gone and tried tying them > together yet. > >Also, the AGATE wire book shows a "Comm Mic Return" pin 8 on P4002, >to be joined with the Comm Audio Lo. The Garmin manual simply shows >that as a reserved or unused pin. Hmmmm . . . I did those drawings some years ago and a tech over in experimental flight installed the radio. A week later I noticed that the radio was in and working . . . but if he found any errors in my drawing he didn't mention them. So I'm assuming that the drawings are correct as depicted. Is it just an audio issue? Which way . . . can't talk or can't hear or both? Does the transmitter key when you press the mic button. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:58:48 AM PST US From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Official color of levers HI Ron- In a glider, flaps are grey, speed / air / dive brakes are blue, and canopy release / jettison are red. Wheel brakes are typically either a metallic bicycle brake-type affair mounted just below the stick grip or are incorporated into the dive brake at the extreme end of the deploy travel. And again..... What color was the throttle ball?? ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:26:42 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Figure Z? From: "user9253" Ken, You could pick one of the Z-Drawings, add to it and modify for the rotary engine, then post your schematic for others to comment on. If you do not know which drawing to start with, try Z-11. I agree with Glenn that the ground wire should be attached to a solid part of the engine, not to sheet metal. The PC680 should be adequate and meets your goal of light weight. You could ask Dave Atkins opinion. Do you have any information on the wiring requirements for the alternator or ignition? What about a fuel pump? Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=288144#288144 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:59:29 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Official color of levers From: "Matt Prather" Gliders don't have throttles.. All the airplanes I have flown with throttles have black marking on that control. So far it sounds like the conflicts would be with the canopy release and mixture both being red, and the air brakes and propeller both being blue. Regards, Matt- > > HI Ron- > > In a glider, flaps are grey, speed / air / dive brakes are blue, and > canopy > release / jettison are red. Wheel brakes are typically either a metallic > bicycle brake-type affair mounted just below the stick grip or are > incorporated into the dive brake at the extreme end of the deploy travel. > > > And again..... What color was the throttle ball?? > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:11:06 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Official color of levers From: rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us Hi Roger "And again..... What color was the throttle ball??" To my understanding the throttle balls of the vast majority of gliders are connected to the pilot. Thus usually hidden out of sight and color depends on race ;-) Ron Parigoris ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:42 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Clearing some away some fog and fuzzy logic . . . I've been invited in a private discussion where a builder is wrestling with his panel fabricator. Seems his hired wire-slinger has been discovered some stuff fuses vs. breakers and breakers only for crow-bar protected alternators. For many of you, this is pretty old stuff but this is a large group. For folks who have not followed this discussion for the last 15 years or so, I'll offer the following. The AeroElectric-List graybeards can delete and move on . . . Q: The Aeroelectric is such a proponent of Autocar Fuses . . . Bob: The PRIMARY attraction for fuses is equivalent protection for MUCH less cost and conservation of panel space. Q(continued) . . . instead of breakers because if it trips he says you should not attempt to put it back on while in the air, hence fuses makes sense...but in his diagrams he still adds a 5 amp breaker to alternator field instead of fuses.? But would one reset this breaker 'in flight' after it trips, cause re-setting breakers in flight could cause more harm, maybe you can explain a bit more. A(reader): Engaging the field circuit while the alternator is spinning at rated speed (i.e. - in flight) is hard on the alternator and even harder on the regulator and (my opinion only) should not be done on a regular or casual basis. Bob: Absolutely not true. This myth has been bubbling in old mechanic's tales cauldron for decades and has NO foundation in physics. There IS a phenomenon exhibited by some alternator regulators where energizing the alternator at light load and hi rpm produces an voltage overshoot that may even trip WHAT EVER ov protection is in place. This is a design feature of regulator dynamics that can be disconcerting but in no way does it represent a hazard to the alternator, regulator or the rest of the system. A(continued): IF you have a problem, however - having the option to do so is nice. Suppose you had a OV condition that trips the alternator offline and you are IMC or VFR-on-top and your battery is draining pretty bad before you can get down - I'll take a possible OV condition in that scenario over dead screens, and reengage the alternator field. If the battery is low already it will absorb a good deal of the excess current, dropping the voltage and protecting the avionics to a degree. As the charge state of the battery comes up the OV will trip out the alt field again when the voltage rises beyond the set point of the crow bar, but you've gained some battery charge in the process. Lather, rinse, repeat, and fly the airplane. You may fry the regulator (which was suspect already by default of your situation) and you won't do the battery any favors with the high current charge/discharge cycles - but you'll keep your avionics up and give yourself a chance to get down safely. Bob: This reader demonstrates no appreciation for failure tolerant design or understanding of what constitutes a hazardous voltage condition for the rest of the system. The root rationale for resetting CB on the alternator field includes . . . (1) there are occasionally situations where an ov protection system of ANY style by ANY manufacturer can be induced to nuisance trip. The ability to do a cautious/attentive reset is useful. (2) legacy operating philosophy CB trips that shut down especially useful equipment, resetting a breaker is is allowed one time. In a failed-regulator scenario, resetting the breaker once simply produces a second trip. In no case does it put extraordinary stresses on other components that are still working. A (reader): Bob talks in absolutes. When there is over lap or preference, it gets a little confusing. Remember some of Bob's ideas are more in the preference area than technically necessary. The main reason for the ALT CB is when using a "crow-bar" or B & C regulator, which has a crow bar in it. The CB is an integral part of the "crow-bar system", an over voltage protection device as you know. The crow bar works by dead shorting the CB and tripping it. The Plane power alternator that I recommend, also uses or needs a CB. You could still use a fuse from any CB, however, a CB makes more sense, if you plan on occasionally tripping circuit "normally". (read on) Here is my interpretation of Bob's CB/Fuse philosophy. Since the OV "crow bar" might trip "accidentally", the ability to reset it, is desirable; the CB is obviously more desirable than a fuse for something you expect to normally trip on occasion. Bob denies the crow-bar is finicky or subject to nuisance trips. OK? If its true, it never tripped unless, than you could use a fuse, right? Well the crow-bar is not that stable. There are other ways to protect from OV, and this is one that Bob likes, and it needs a CB to work. Bob: NEVER have I suggested that the OV crowbar devices manufactured by me, B&C, Plane-Power or OV disconnect devices by Perhelion, Electro-Delta, or BF Goodrich ARE or ARE NOT "finicky". Anyone who understands legacy OV protection philosophies will offer due diligence in designing and qualifying their device for intended purpose in accordance with DO-160/Mil-STD-704 design goals. ALL diligent designs are subject to nuisance tripping from transients for reasons that have nothing to do with design of the OV protection device. Even the most diligent designs are subject to errors in understanding ALL the potential nuisance trip sources in the targeted airframes. Since the LR-1 first flew on Voyager's closed circuit tests of the coast of CA up to the present LR-3 configuration there have been THREE changes to design to address new discoveries AFTER the product was fielded. The first such condition was noted before Voyager did the around the world flight where LR-2 regulators were installed. The last two changes were prompted by discoveries that were not brought to light until thousands of regulators had been giving satisfactory service for years. My current production OV modules have benefited from lessons-learned in the last two modifications. Further, those lessons learned would have been the same whether the ov module opened a circuit breaker or operated a relay. A(contintued):In general his "logic" or philosophy on "fused" items, is you can live with out them or should if it blows, with proper design of your system. In most production planes (read all) only CB's are used or resettable thermal current limiting devices. Bob is right, fuse are cheap, simple, light and work to protect the wires as good as any CB. The down side is you have to carry extra fuses and it's difficult to fix or re-set in flight. However the latter issue, resetting in flight, is moot in Bob's opinion. He proposes you don't want to replace a fuse, ever, until you land. Obviously if a CB pops, you might consider not resetting it, like if you smell something. At least you let a CB cool and only allow one reset. So bottom line, if a fuse blows it's OK to leave it blown till you land since you don't need the device and it might harm something to reset that circuit, in the scenario in his mind. Bob: this writer chooses to ignore my suggestion that fuses are PREFERABLE for equivalent protection ONLY when the builder understands and strives for failure tolerant design. This design philosophy produces a system were fuse replacement is NOT NECESSARY because the airplane has no device 'critical for continued flight'. i.e. every devise with a potential for critical operation has a PLAN-B. Hence, whether the fuse is nuisance tripped or the device simply dies, no immediate hazard to flight is created. If one chooses to design and operation his/her OBAM aircraft in the spirit and intent of a C-172, then by all means, use breakers throughout. You may indeed wish to do a one-time reset on several of the airplane's electro-whizzies. When I fly, it's ALWAYS a rented TC aircraft, it's ALWAYS fitted with breakers and I ALWAYS have this failure-tolerance-package in the flight bag . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf A(continued) IMHO, for heavy current items like gear retraction motors, CB's are generally preferred. A electric motor can have a transient overload and be fine. So CB reset is hand. Bob: Fuses are NOT suitable for hi-inrush loads or the protection of fat-wire feeders and they've never been recommended for that application. In these instances fuse-like CURRENT LIMITERS and or fusible links are suggested in my writing (TC aircraft use current limiters too). The reader demonstrates no appreciation for legacy design goals and recipes for success that go back nearly 100 years. A(continued): The Alternator is a little different? You could use a fuse. Bob makes grand statements of philosophy or "Bob rules", but than it "appears" he contradicts himself or changes the philosophy to fit his current opinion. That is not a criticism, we all move the goal post sometimes. However if you think you can live with out your alternator, say fly on battery power, than the fuse on the ALT is not critical. You could sub in a fuse for simplicity and less cost/weight. If you have a stock internal voltage regulated alterantor the CB on the "IGN" lead is even less useful. The current is like 0.10 amps or less. If you are using an internally regulated alterantor than the fuse can be say 0.5 or 1 amp since the "IGN" lead is only a 'signal' to wake up or sleep the alternator, not a "field wire" or power to the voltage regulator. All the power goes through the b-lead. If you are using a Plane Power, than use a 5 amp (or what ever size) CB they suggest, since that is also a "crow bar" type CB popper as well. As you might know a crow-bar dead shorts the CB to trip it, removing power to the regulator, which removers power to the the alternator "Field", which de-energizes the alternator, if its miss behaving. Bottom line. Bob's way is not the only way or best way, just his way which is totally fine. Some times its over kill. Some times the reasons he gives are opposed to other opinions (but there is always a justification). It's just not that important, and if you follow his philosophy you will be ok, albeit may be on the overkill side. The only thing I really think is wrong is putting a crow bar & over voltage relay on the b-lead of a internally regulated alternator. That is heavy and a Jury Rig. It also will damage the alternator in the event of a nuisance trip. Bob: discussed, researched, and demonstrated not to be true. See recent updates to chapter on alternators. A(continued): If you are worried about your internally regulated alterantor (and you will be if you believe everything Bob says, which he does not have proof of) than get a Plane Power unit. Also good is B&C alterantor with an external regulator, but I would get a Transpo V1200 regulator not a B&C voltage regulator. The Transpo V1200 uses solid state OV protection and not a CB tripper crow bar. It also cost 1/3rd or 1/4th the cost of B&C voltage regulator price. Bob: The really cool thing about the Internet is that it's ALL out there for reading. The really bad thing about the Internet is that it's ALL out there for the reading. Individuals who make due-diligence searches of the archives for guidance must be wary of advice that carries just enough truth to give the appearance of knowledgeable, well considered, recipes for success. But like the exchange detailed above, Some writers place their otherwise good advice in question when they carry tar bushes in one hand and buckets of tomatoes in the other. The writing is also suspect when the reasoning demonstrates no understanding of the physics or simple ideas that go into recipes for success that have rich histories of performing to design goals. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 12:24:04 PM PST US Subject: Re: GPU connection philosophy WAS: AeroElectric-List: Re: GPU for Piper From: John McMahon Thanks Bob. That was also my decision when powering the systems., primarily for having the battery on line but seeing all those other 'smart' TC folks do it the other way was confusing me. I'm doing it your way! On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> > > At 11:30 PM 2/24/2010, you wrote: > >> Bob, Could you expand on the two philosophies or point me to a further >> discussion. I've been wrestling with both ways and each time I decide one >> way, I think about it some more and change my mind...again? Is either >> choice superior or is it six of one and half a dozen of the other? >> > > If you hook ground power to the battery side of the > GP_Contactor, you can charge the battery without > powering up the aircraft. Further, you would not > be able to hook ground power to the aircraft WITHOUT > having the battery on line as well. This would be > my preferred configuration. > > Production TC do it both ways but predominantly > the OTHER way. I'm mystified as to the rationale > for doing it the other way . . . somebody made > that decision long before my time and isn't around > to explain it any more. I'm unable to deduce > any advantage that would give it precedence over > the first way. I am presuming that they had a > "good" reason but I don't know what it is. > > Bob . . . > > -- John McMahon Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved) ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 02:19:48 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RFC: My external power schematic At 10:21 AM 2/22/2010, you wrote: > > >nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: > > > > Let's discuss the ways in which the schematic in > > Z-31A falls short of your design goals. > > > > >First, the minor differences: > >I put an LED across the solenoid so that I have some immediate >feedback that it is engaged when I think it should be (and not >engaged when I think it shouldn't be). This is what's suggested in Figure 3 of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf The press to test fixture shows when the contactor is energized and also proves availability of ground power if the press-to-test works. >I also added a second diode reversed across the solenoid, similar to >the one you have across the main battery contactor in Z-31A. Is >there something different about the external power contactor that >makes this safety not recommended? Why would you want to close the ground power contactor from a battery that's okay? As another reader pointed out, this negates the protection for reversed polarity in the ground power source. >The major departure in my schematic is the addition of the >switch. The center position gives the same behavior as >Z-31A. The "force" position I put in there as a means of >overcoming the problem I saw with the Otter. I can't figure out how the schematic cited above doesn't address this. >With any luck, I'd just leave the switch on Auto for the lifetime of >the airplane. But weird stuff happens... :) Why not replace the switch breaker with a pullable breaker in Figure 3 and probably leave that breaker OUT for the lifetime of the airplane? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 03:54:26 PM PST US From: Peter Pengilly Subject: Re: GPU connection philosophy WAS: AeroElectric-List: Re: GPU for Piper Bob, When I was in the military we sometimes had aircraft in the hangar on ground power for many hours at a time as electrics or avionics snags were investigated. Ground Power plugs were wired up to by-pass the battery, and most times (always?) the battery connector was pulled. Also, if the battery (24v Ni-Cad) was flat we took it down to the battery bay and got another. We also used to start the aircraft every time on external power (unless a power rig wasn't available). Perhaps this thinking has found its way by osmosis into the small aircraft TC community without any good reason? Perhaps its also an attempt to stop owners charging old wet electrolyte batteries in situ, with the risk of acid spillage, or worse? Regards, Peter Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 11:30 PM 2/24/2010, you wrote: >> Bob, Could you expand on the two philosophies or point me to a >> further discussion. I've been wrestling with both ways and each time >> I decide one way, I think about it some more and change my >> mind...again? Is either choice superior or is it six of one and half >> a dozen of the other? > > If you hook ground power to the battery side of the > GP_Contactor, you can charge the battery without > powering up the aircraft. Further, you would not > be able to hook ground power to the aircraft WITHOUT > having the battery on line as well. This would be > my preferred configuration. > > Production TC do it both ways but predominantly > the OTHER way. I'm mystified as to the rationale > for doing it the other way . . . somebody made > that decision long before my time and isn't around > to explain it any more. I'm unable to deduce > any advantage that would give it precedence over > the first way. I am presuming that they had a > "good" reason but I don't know what it is. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:54:57 PM PST US From: David Nelson Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-11 Question Hi Bob, Looking at Z-11/M, why is the endurance bus protected by a fuse from the battery bus but not the main bus? Is it just for the sake of the switch or something else? Thank you, /\/elson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse 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.