---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 07/13/11: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:47 AM - Re: HD Sub-D Crimper (Christopher SeeStone) 2. 06:50 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Charlie England) 3. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Kelly McMullen) 4. 09:35 AM - Fw: PTT issue (Dan Billingsley) 5. 12:12 PM - Operating limitations. was Viking Engine (Ed Holyoke) 6. 06:33 PM - Re: Fw: PTT issue (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 06:50 PM - Drowned battery (Bill Hibbing) 8. 07:56 PM - Re: Drowned battery (Mike Welch) 9. 09:07 PM - Re: Drowned battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 10. 09:42 PM - Re: Drowned battery (rayj) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:47:25 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper From: Christopher SeeStone Michael... I purchased mine at a surplus electronics outlet in Fremont... I think it was on Christy St. There also used to be a number of surplus electronics stores in the San Jose/Milpitas/Fremont area. There's always E-bay and Craig's list... Chris Stone RV-8 Oregon On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:40 PM, wrote: > ** > Hi all, > > I am upgrading a radio and am going to have to crimp a bunch of high > density sub-D pins. I have a great little crimper from B&C for the regular > pins, but don't have anything for the HD pins. Steinair has one for about > $365. I was trying to find a less expensive way to go. Any sources? > > Thanks, > > Michael Wynn > RV 8 wiring > San Ramon, CA > > > * > > * > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:50:19 AM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine In my post, I think that I specifically said that the fuel pump change would be considered a major alteration. (That assumes that the change is made *after* the plane has left phase 1 testing.) My point was that there's a difference between airframe changes and operational changes. The only operational change I can think of that would require re-entering phase 1 would be adding an acro capability, because most homebuilt oplims have traditionally had specific exclusions for any acro maneuvers that aren't tested and documented in phase 1. I was told that the latest version of oplims, that require notifying the FSDO & getting approval of the test area, came about after 9-11 when hyper-monitoring of just about everything became common. For re-entering phase one under the new oplims, my FSDO just wants a fax with the request & the requested test area, & they respond with a fax. They are very accommodating with the size/shape of the area, mainly requiring that we stay away from controlled airspace if we aren't based at a controlled field (no need to fly in the controlled airspace). A FSDO in a higher traffic area would likely be more restrictive. Charlie On 07/13/2011 12:06 AM, Ed Holyoke wrote: > John, > > Once again, most of the newer oplims specify that they must be > notified and concur with the test flight area. You don't request a new > phase 1 period. The best way is to walk it in and get the signature on > your letter, then you're not waiting for them to respond by mail, > snail or otherwise. > > Charlie, you might be right about changing fuel not being an > alteration, however Appendix A does say that "conversions of any sort > for the purpose of using a fuel of a rating or grade other than that > listed in the engine specifications" is a major alteration. That would > seem to include removing the engine driven fuel pump and adding a > second boost pump to take it's place. If the engine doesn't have a > data plate on it, well maybe, but only because it doesn't have any > specifications, not because it isn't an alteration. Speaking of > Lycomings, here. Auto conversions are a bit of a different story, of > course. > > Ed Holyoke > > On 7/12/2011 8:16 PM, John Cox wrote: >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Cox" >> >> Here is a kernel of value. The Inspector told me If you write and send >> the statement of work and request for a new Phase One via USPS, they >> respond USPS. If you email it, they respond by email. As a former >> letter carrier, the speed of light is just a tad quicker. I doubt if you >> send it FEDEX they would respond in kind, so chose wisely. Waiting to >> hear back. >> >> John >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:50 PM >> To:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David >> >> It could be that the FAA changed it back to having to notify them and I >> just hadn't heard. I'm sorry if I'm not keeping up. >> >> David >> >> >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John >> Cox" >>> Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness >>> Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners >>> can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will >>> authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and >>> geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and >>> appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion. >>> So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require >>> notification of anyone" I am saying show me. >>> >>> John Cox >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> David >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:50 PM >>> To:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine >>> >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David >>> >>> AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not >>> require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase >> 1 >>> flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary. >>> >>> David M. >>> >>> >>>> Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1 >>>> test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec >>>> that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence >>>> with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made >>>> to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is >>>> to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which >>>> states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned >>>> phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a >>>> >>> copy. >>> >>>> The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in >>>> part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1. >>>> >> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BE >>>> D30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument >>>> >>>> (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a >>>> rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications. >>>> >>>> If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with >>>> alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a >>>> logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything >>>> >>> further. >>> >>>> Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and >>>> that you agree with my interpretation. >>>> >>>> Pax, >>>> >>>> Ed Holyoke >>>> >>>> On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote: >>>> >>>>> To All, >>>>> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the >>>>> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a >>>>> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the >>>>> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would >>>>> most likely require going back into Phase 1. >>>>> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) >>>>> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other >>>>> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would >> be >>>>> >>> >>>>> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather >>>>> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements >>>>> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS. >>>>> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole >>>>> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into >>>>> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires >> an >>>>> >>> >>>>> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder >>>>> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show >>>>> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to >>>>> the STC. >>>>> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental >>>>> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate >>>>> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that >>>>> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond >>>>> the Phase 1 operating area. >>>>> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to >>>>> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion. >>>>> Pete Rouse >>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> --- >>>>> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of >>>>> *Mike Welch >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM >>>>> *To:*aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>>>> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine >>>>> >>>>> Guys, >>>>> >>>>> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, >> you >>>>> still don't have the 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out >>>>> of the factory, do you? From my experience, if you want to use auto >>>>> gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for an 'STC'. >>>>> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the >>>>> factory. I don't know. >>>>> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required >>>>> the STC, and they weren't free. >>>>> >>>>> Mike Welch >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn >>>>>> >>>>> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are >> talking >>>>> >>> >>>>> about>Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a >>>>> Luscombe, I don't really see your point. >>>>> >>>>>> do not archive >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Ben Haas >>>>>> N801BH >>>>>> www.haaspowerair.com >>>>>> >>>>> ---------- Original Message ---------- >>>>> From:ronburnett@charter.net >>>>> To:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine >>>>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT) >>>>> >>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:ronburnett@charter.net >>>>> >>>>> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto >>>>> >>> engine. >>> >>>>> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my >>>>> Luscombe 8A. >>>>> >>>>> Ron Burnett >>>>> >>>>> Do not archive >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Morgensen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> johninreno >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM,ronburnett@charter.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:ronburnett@charter.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru >>>>>>> H-4 engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate >>>>>>> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not >>>>>>> believe any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim >>>>>>> and subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to >>>>>>> >>> know. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:27 AM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine It would be interesting to consider plane with Lycoming derived experimental engine, that was changed enough to require 40 hour Phase 1 test period had any specifications. Certainly is debate as to applicability of ADs to such an engine. I would expect same debate as to whether Part 43 Appendix A had any applicability to such an engine. On 7/12/2011 10:06 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote: > > Charlie, you might be right about changing fuel not being an > alteration, however Appendix A does say that "conversions of any sort > for the purpose of using a fuel of a rating or grade other than that > listed in the engine specifications" is a major alteration. That would > seem to include removing the engine driven fuel pump and adding a > second boost pump to take it's place. If the engine doesn't have a > data plate on it, well maybe, but only because it doesn't have any > specifications, not because it isn't an alteration. Speaking of > Lycomings, here. Auto conversions are a bit of a different story, of > course. > > Ed Holyoke > * > * ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 09:35:47 AM PST US From: Dan Billingsley Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: PTT issue As of this morning my PTT Buzz ghost is gone. I haven't done an engine start yet, so I'm not going to do back-flips (don't wanna jinx it) but I am a happy camper. As per my e-mail below to Bob N. , I started tracing wires and noticed the red and white tristed pair which were "salvaged" wires meant for an engine instrument. I know these thermocouple wires are dissimilar and now I know this is a big no no to use them in a system for power or return. Thanks Bob and All for the ideas and comments. Dan B ----- Forwarded Message ---- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > To: Dan Billingsley > Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 9:59:17 PM > Subject: Re: PTT issue > > At 02:56 PM 7/12/2011, you wrote: > > Bob, As I was working on the issue at hand with the PTT buzz, I noticed that >I > > used a twisted pair of theromocouple wire (originally intended for an engine > > instrument) as the hot wire from my buss to my on off toggle switch and then > > back to the hot wire on the radio. I remember taking a second look at using >this > > twisted pair while installing it, but dismissed it. I tend to think is is a > > non-issue as the radio works great while receiving, but I am now at the point >of > > troubleshooting I will entertain any plausible problem. > > That needs to come out. TC wire is very high resistance stuff > and not at all suited to carrying power. In fact, a high resistance > in the power lead might very well be the cause of your problem. > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 12:12:10 PM PST US From: Ed Holyoke Subject: AeroElectric-List: Operating limitations. was Viking Engine Charlie, You did indeed say so. Sorry that I didn't refer back to your e-mail when I wrote mine. I would have seen that. I agree that very few operational changes would require phase 1. I also think that people should be very careful with fueling and fuel system changes (and other powerplant changes), regardless of the regulatory requirements. Prudence should dictate that no passengers be carried while doing new things. I imposed a 5 hour no passenger period on myself when I overhauled our engine, not out of any requirement, but from an abundance of caution. Don't know if they changed because of 9-11. My oplims are actually much less restrictive than the earlier version. True, I have to notify, but the earlier version basically just said no no no. Van Nuys FSDO, in a populated area, is indeed hard to deal with. When I asked for new oplims, they tried to tell me that I couldn't operate an experimental aircraft from my home field and 3 others - at all, phase 1 or 2! I told them that they were exceeding their authority and sicced the EAA on them. It them took a week and a half to do what should have been a 45 minute piece of over the counter paperwork, but they did cough it up. As soon as I was clear, the EAA took it up with FAA, DC and the FSDO got their wrist slapped. From what I hear, the FSDO wouldstilllike to prohibit ex, but can't until somebody gives them an excuse. We all need to be careful not to provide these kinds of people an reason to jump on us. Case in point; the guy that attempted to fly for the first time with a supercharger engaged on a 5 hour old Velocity a few years back and crashed into a house on his first flight out of North Las Vegas. One killed aboard and two on the ground. Not only did the local FSDO later prohibit phase 1 from there, but there was an attempt to legislate as well. This is scary reading: http://aircrashed.com/cause/cLAX08LA274.shtml Pax, Ed Holyoke On 7/13/2011 6:47 AM, Charlie England wrote: > In my post, I think that I specifically said that the fuel pump change > would be considered a major alteration. (That assumes that the change > is made *after* the plane has left phase 1 testing.) > > My point was that there's a difference between airframe changes and > operational changes. The only operational change I can think of that > would require re-entering phase 1 would be adding an acro capability, > because most homebuilt oplims have traditionally had specific > exclusions for any acro maneuvers that aren't tested and documented in > phase 1. > > I was told that the latest version of oplims, that require notifying > the FSDO & getting approval of the test area, came about after 9-11 > when hyper-monitoring of just about everything became common. For > re-entering phase one under the new oplims, my FSDO just wants a fax > with the request & the requested test area, & they respond with a fax. > They are very accommodating with the size/shape of the area, mainly > requiring that we stay away from controlled airspace if we aren't > based at a controlled field (no need to fly in the controlled > airspace). A FSDO in a higher traffic area would likely be more > restrictive. > > Charlie > > > On 07/13/2011 12:06 AM, Ed Holyoke wrote: >> John, >> >> Once again, most of the newer oplims specify that they must be >> notified and concur with the test flight area. You don't request a >> new phase 1 period. The best way is to walk it in and get the >> signature on your letter, then you're not waiting for them to respond >> by mail, snail or otherwise. >> >> Charlie, you might be right about changing fuel not being an >> alteration, however Appendix A does say that "conversions of any sort >> for the purpose of using a fuel of a rating or grade other than that >> listed in the engine specifications" is a major alteration. That >> would seem to include removing the engine driven fuel pump and adding >> a second boost pump to take it's place. If the engine doesn't have a >> data plate on it, well maybe, but only because it doesn't have any >> specifications, not because it isn't an alteration. Speaking of >> Lycomings, here. Auto conversions are a bit of a different story, of >> course. >> >> Ed Holyoke >> >> On 7/12/2011 8:16 PM, John Cox wrote: >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Cox" >>> >>> Here is a kernel of value. The Inspector told me If you write and send >>> the statement of work and request for a new Phase One via USPS, they >>> respond USPS. If you email it, they respond by email. As a former >>> letter carrier, the speed of light is just a tad quicker. I doubt if you >>> send it FEDEX they would respond in kind, so chose wisely. Waiting to >>> hear back. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:50 PM >>> To:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine >>> >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David >>> >>> It could be that the FAA changed it back to having to notify them and I >>> just hadn't heard. I'm sorry if I'm not keeping up. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John >>> Cox" >>>> Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness >>>> Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners >>>> can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will >>>> authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and >>>> geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and >>>> appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion. >>>> So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require >>>> notification of anyone" I am saying show me. >>>> >>>> John Cox >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >>> David >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:50 PM >>>> To:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine >>>> >>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David >>>> >>>> AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not >>>> require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase >>> 1 >>>> flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary. >>>> >>>> David M. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1 >>>>> test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec >>>>> that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence >>>>> with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made >>>>> to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is >>>>> to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which >>>>> states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned >>>>> phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a >>>>> >>>> copy. >>>> >>>>> The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in >>>>> part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1. >>>>> >>> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BE >>>>> D30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument >>>>> >>>>> (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a >>>>> rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications. >>>>> >>>>> If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with >>>>> alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a >>>>> logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything >>>>> >>>> further. >>>> >>>>> Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and >>>>> that you agree with my interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> Pax, >>>>> >>>>> Ed Holyoke >>>>> >>>>> On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> To All, >>>>>> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the >>>>>> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a >>>>>> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the >>>>>> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would >>>>>> most likely require going back into Phase 1. >>>>>> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) >>>>>> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other >>>>>> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would >>> be >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather >>>>>> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements >>>>>> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS. >>>>>> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole >>>>>> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into >>>>>> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires >>> an >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder >>>>>> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show >>>>>> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to >>>>>> the STC. >>>>>> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental >>>>>> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate >>>>>> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that >>>>>> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond >>>>>> the Phase 1 operating area. >>>>>> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to >>>>>> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion. >>>>>> Pete Rouse >>>>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> --- >>>>>> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>>>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of >>>>>> *Mike Welch >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM >>>>>> *To:*aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>>>>> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine >>>>>> >>>>>> Guys, >>>>>> >>>>>> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, >>> you >>>>>> still don't have the 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out >>>>>> of the factory, do you? From my experience, if you want to use auto >>>>>> gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for an 'STC'. >>>>>> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the >>>>>> factory. I don't know. >>>>>> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required >>>>>> the STC, and they weren't free. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Welch >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn >>>>>>> >>>>>> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are >>> talking >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> about>Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a >>>>>> Luscombe, I don't really see your point. >>>>>> >>>>>>> do not archive >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ben Haas >>>>>>> N801BH >>>>>>> www.haaspowerair.com >>>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Original Message ---------- >>>>>> From:ronburnett@charter.net >>>>>> To:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>>>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine >>>>>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT) >>>>>> >>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:ronburnett@charter.net >>>>>> >>>>>> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto >>>>>> >>>> engine. >>>> >>>>>> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my >>>>>> Luscombe 8A. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron Burnett >>>>>> >>>>>> Do not archive >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Morgensen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> johninreno >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM,ronburnett@charter.net wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:ronburnett@charter.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru >>>>>>>> H-4 engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate >>>>>>>> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not >>>>>>>> believe any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim >>>>>>>> and subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to >>>>>>>> >>>> know. > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:33:05 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fw: PTT issue At 11:31 AM 7/13/2011, you wrote: > > >As of this morning my PTT Buzz ghost is gone. I haven't done an engine start >yet, so I'm not going to do back-flips (don't wanna jinx it) but I am a happy >camper. As per my e-mail below to Bob N. , I started tracing wires >and noticed >the red and white tristed pair which were "salvaged" wires meant for >an engine >instrument. I know these thermocouple wires are dissimilar and now I >know this >is a big no no to use them in a system for power or return. > >Thanks Bob and All for the ideas and comments. What Dan was experiencing was a manifestation of 'negative resistance' . . . a euphemism for the effects on closed loop system stability where root cause is an un-accounted for increase in resistance somewhere in the loop. The resistance causes devices with gain to believe they're seeing positive feedback. Positive feedback + gain can produce instabilities, i.e. oscillations. The classic example discussed here on the list at various times over the years was the "galloping ammeter" in airplanes where the power path from the bus through a breaker, alternator switch, ov protection system and perhaps a dozen crimps and mated pins in connectors was carrying BOTH field_current AND sense-voltage for a simple regulator. After years of service, the sum total of resistance in this path might rise by several hundred milliohms. At some point, this became a 'negative resistance' value that caused the voltage regulator to 'chase' a moving target for bus voltage . . . voltage the regulator could SEE at the end of the wire was waving in the breeze in response to changes of field current as the regulator attempted to get it's arms around design goals. Interestingly enough, many such problems appeared to go away after a mechanic replace THE master switch or THE circuit breaker. The mechanic would then pronounce the replaced device as 'bad' and push the airplane out the door . . . only to have it return in perhaps a few months with the same problem. This is discussed in more detail on page 9 of http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternators/Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf This is a situation where TOTAL replacement of all components in the field-power/voltage-sense path would offer a new lease on regulator stability probably for tens of years. Dan's situation involved a transceiver that didn't draw enough current in receive to produce a distasteful voltage at the back of the radio. But when he attempted to transmit, the voltage fell below some value that caused some part of the transmitter to shut down. The current would drop, the transmitter would recover, the offended circuit would do it's thing again. In this case it was a pretty fast rate of shut-down, recovery and shutdown that produced a near musical note. These situations are pretty rare except where they are literally designed in. The engineers that wired alternators in Cessnas in 1968 had no idea that aging of the quality of joints in that power/sense path over 30+ years would cause the system to go unstable. None-the-less, it happens on lots of older airplanes all the time and very few mechanics understand why or how to really fix it. Dan's particular discovery for this phenomenon turned out to be a craftsmanship/materials issue. MUCH easier to find and fix than design errors. His radio is going to be just fine in 30 years . . . but as you read these words, many an ammeter on lots of Piper and Cessna aircraft is waving in the breeze. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:50:02 PM PST US From: "Bill Hibbing" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Drowned battery Here's one that I could use some opinion/advice on. I use a B&C 25 AH in my Glasair and tend to change them out every year or so. I've got the one that I changed out this year in my hangar and I use it for testing/powering up things that are out of the airplane and maybe not even aviation related, like when I'm working on a motorcycle that I don't want to buy a battery for until I get it restored. As some of you may know we had a bit of high water down here in the Memphis area couple of months ago and my hangar at M01 ended up with about 6 feet of water in it and the battery was one of the things that I didn't put in the POD when I emptied out the hangar in preparation for the flood. So, the battery ended up sitting under water for about a week. I was sure that it was a "goner" but when I put the voltmeter on it I read 12.7 volts. Now, what I'm wondering is what will happen when I put the battery charger on the battery. I asked the folks at B&C and they weren't quite sure so I thought that maybe Bob or someone else might have an idea. Any thoughts? Bill Glasair SIIS-FT ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:56:29 PM PST US From: Mike Welch Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Drowned battery Bill=2C A quick check of the specific gravity of typical battery acid says=3B In one of its most familiar applications=2C it serves as the electrolyte in the lead-acid storage battery commonly used in motor vehicles (acid for this use=2C containing ab out 33% H2SO4 and with specific gravity about 1.25=2C is often called battery acid). Water=2C on the other hand=2C is 1.0 ( @ 4 deg C). Temps above 4C will b e a minute amount less. What all these means is....battery acid weighs more than flood water. Assu ming no one shook you battery around while it was under water=2C the heavier battery acid jus t stayed "put"!! Your battery was unaffected by rising flood water. For the same reasons why oil floats on top of water=2C because oil weighs less than water=2C "water" weighs less than your battery acid=2C and therefore will NOT seep into and displace the heavier acid. Mike Welch From: n744bh@bellsouth.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: Drowned battery Here's one that I could use some opinion/advice on. I use a B&C 25 AH in my Glasair and tend to change them out every year or so. I've got the one that I changed out this year in my hangar and I use it for testing/powering up things that are out of the airplane and ma ybe not even aviation related=2C like when I'm working on a motorcycle that I d on't want to buy a battery for until I get it restored. As some of you may know we had a bit of high water down here in the Memphis area couple of months a go and my hangar at M01 ended up with about 6 feet of water in it and the batt ery was one of the things that I didn't put in the POD when I emptied out the hangar in preparation for the flood. So=2C the battery ended up sitting under water for about a week. I was sure that it was a "goner" but when I put the voltmeter on it I read 12.7 volts. Now=2C what I'm wondering is wh at will happen when I put the battery charger on the battery. I asked the folks at B&C and they weren't quite sure so I thought that maybe Bob or someone else might have an idea. Any thoughts? Bill Glasair SIIS-FT ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:07:45 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Drowned battery At 08:47 PM 7/13/2011, you wrote: >Here's one that I could use some opinion/advice on. I use a B&C 25 >AH in my Glasair and tend to change them out every year or so. I've >got the one that I changed out this year in my hangar and I use it >for testing/powering up things that are out of the airplane and >maybe not even aviation related, like when I'm working on a >motorcycle that I don't want to buy a battery for until I get it >restored. As some of you may know we had a bit of high water down >here in the Memphis area couple of months ago and my hangar at M01 >ended up with about 6 feet of water in it and the battery was one of >the things that I didn't put in the POD when I emptied out the >hangar in preparation for the flood. So, the battery ended up >sitting under water for about a week. I was sure that it was a >"goner" but when I put the voltmeter on it I read 12.7 volts. Now, >what I'm wondering is what will happen when I put the battery >charger on the battery. I asked the folks at B&C and they weren't >quite sure so I thought that maybe Bob or someone else might have an >idea. Any thoughts? Sure, this is a sealed battery . . . so there's no risk for water getting inside. The terminals were immersed in water but were so far apart in the fluid that no significant discharge current flowed. Charge/maintain it per your regular processes. It's probably no worse a battery after the bath than it was before the bath. A flooded battery with vent-caps would be another matter entirely. I've heard of flooded batteries being externally flooded getting the water/acid dumped, replaced with a temporary mix of new water/acid, being charged, and then having the electrolyte replaced again with SG equal to full charge. Of course, you'd have to be working with a very expensive battery to make it practical to spend that much $time$ recovering it. But your SVLA battery would be pretty much immune to the effects of temporare immersion in water. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:04 PM PST US From: rayj Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Drowned battery FWIW The depth of the water might be a factor. 6ft of water would create approximately 2.5 psi of pressure trying to force the water into any gas spaces in the battery. I don't know if the battery design results in any gas spaces within the battery and I don't know if the release valve or any other part of the battery would be vulnerable to water infiltration at that pressure. Just another factor to consider. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On 07/13/2011 11:03 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 08:47 PM 7/13/2011, you wrote: >> Here's one that I could use some opinion/advice on. I use a B&C 25 AH >> in my Glasair and tend to change them out every year or so. I've got >> the one that I changed out this year in my hangar and I use it for >> testing/powering up things that are out of the airplane and maybe not >> even aviation related, like when I'm working on a motorcycle that I >> don't want to buy a battery for until I get it restored. As some of >> you may know we had a bit of high water down here in the Memphis area >> couple of months ago and my hangar at M01 ended up with about 6 feet >> of water in it and the battery was one of the things that I didn't put >> in the POD when I emptied out the hangar in preparation for the flood. >> So, the battery ended up sitting under water for about a week. I was >> sure that it was a "goner" but when I put the voltmeter on it I read >> 12.7 volts. Now, what I'm wondering is what will happen when I put the >> battery charger on the battery. I asked the folks at B&C and they >> weren't quite sure so I thought that maybe Bob or someone else might >> have an idea. Any thoughts? > > Sure, this is a sealed battery . . . so there's no > risk for water getting inside. The terminals were > immersed in water but were so far apart in the fluid > that no significant discharge current flowed. > > Charge/maintain it per your regular processes. It's > probably no worse a battery after the bath than > it was before the bath. > > A flooded battery with vent-caps would be another > matter entirely. I've heard of flooded batteries > being externally flooded getting the water/acid dumped, > replaced with a temporary mix of new water/acid, > being charged, and then having the electrolyte > replaced again with SG equal to full charge. > > Of course, you'd have to be working with a very > expensive battery to make it practical to spend > that much $time$ recovering it. But your SVLA battery > would be pretty much immune to the effects of temporare > immersion in water. > > > 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 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.