Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:27 AM - Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering RV-10 with Z-14 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:55 AM - Antennas (Sam Staton)
3. 07:45 AM - Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering RV-10 w (rv10flyer)
4. 10:07 AM - Re: Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering RV-10 w (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 11:27 AM - Re: Antennas (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 12:03 PM - Re: Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering RV-10 (Bob Leffler)
7. 02:58 PM - Re: Antennas (Ed Holyoke)
8. 06:52 PM - Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering RV-10 with Z-14 (Bill Watson)
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: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the
first compression stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn
over, it cranks fine but sometimes it takes several tries to get over
the first compression stroke.
Do a load test on the battery to make sure it's
good. Use legacy automotive load tester to drag
battery down to 9 volts for 15 seconds. Read
current needed to do this at the end of 15 seconds.
Should be 400 amps or better . . . most new 18 a.h.
batteries are good for more.
At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear
battery for a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but
found the same situation. Now he is in the process of changing it
out for the same reason.
Did he check this battery independently of
airplane issues?
If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but
again, unless both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a
re-boot of the 3 GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration
to include 1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic
interchange capability I was after.
When B&C started handling the svla/rg/starved electrolyte
batteries many moons ago, it was discovered that they
would out-perform their flooded counterparts that had
twice the capacity.
I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning
something similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more
background....
There's been some mention of the extra cranking
current demands of starters supplied on Lycoming
engines. It would be VERY interesting to do a swap
out for a B&C starter as an experiment. I can probably
arrange to have one shipped to you at no cost
if you're willing to do the work.
My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1)
2AWG cable feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG
cable carries the rest of the power forward. The batteries are both
grounded close to where they are located and no separate ground cable
is used. I followed Bob's grounding advice pretty closely.
What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the
panel on one battery without the engine running. And then to have a
second battery capable of most engine starts. Linking the batteries
together providing an option for tough starts or partially discharged
batteries.
Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've
had to compromise between running the avionics for extended periods
or conserving power for a start.
A starting operation should not demand more than
a few percent of a battery's total capacity. If you
have sluggish starter performance, the problem
is probably not related to battery size.
What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible
(Z-14 req'd switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible.
So it is a fuse-centric design, with 4 breakers and no avionics
master or separate on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I
really like the result. However, I've already found myself having to
crossfeed the batteries for a start which caused me to lose my engine
instrumentation on the GRT HX display while it re-booted.
So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking
juice on a single battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on
the starter will fix it but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B spot),
interchangeability, and the need to design a new battery mount.
Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
I'd really like to see the outcome of a
swap-out experiment.
Bob . . .
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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 |
|
Bob & Listers et al -
I think this may be my first post ever, after lurking for years! I
am building an RV6, and I came into the project after it was very well
along. This has posed some interesting issues with placement of
components and such. I am in the design process now for the
electrical/avionics suite, and need some advice. My avionics will
consist of a Terra TX720D, TR200D, and a TriNav C for navigation. I will
also have a King KY-97A for the second comm. My dilemma concerns the
GS/VOR antennas. I'm pretty sure that I am going to build a dedicated GS
antenna and mount it on the canopy glareshield. The VOR antenna is the
issue. I have a splitter that will handle two VORS & two GS, but I
believe I would need the longer antenna to use it. After all of this
digression, I come to the question - if I mount a VOR antenna in the
roof of the baggage compartment, how much loss will I incur if I bend
the elements to follow the side of the fuselage? The wingtips are
probably not going to be a good option, either - there will be an APRS
J-pole antenna in one, at least. The illustration in the book seems to
show the elements with a pronounced bend aft. If that will work without
significant loss, that may be the answer. Most of my navigation will be
by GPS anyway, so VOR is not the issue it would have been 20 years ago.
Thanks in advance for all of the good info!
Sam Staton
Jacksonville, FL
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: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 w
Try running a #0 ga wire external along with a dedicated ground just for a test
start. Even a long set of jumper cables ran parallel can tell you we have wire
size issues.
Our #2 ga is too small for the log run and current draw. Since Van recommended
that is what I have and it would be alot of work to change now. After almost
finished I have modified most of Vans shortcomings, but not this one.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Bldr# 40983SB Baffles then fuel/oil/exhaust.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351464#351464
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: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
At 09:42 AM 9/5/2011, you wrote:
><wayne.gillispie@yahoo.com>
>
>Try running a #0 ga wire external along with a dedicated ground just
>for a test start. Even a long set of jumper cables ran parallel can
>tell you we have wire size issues.
>
> Our #2 ga is too small for the log run and current draw. Since Van
> recommended that is what I have and it would be alot of work to
> change now. After almost finished I have modified most of Vans
> shortcomings, but not this one.
There is no really good reason to NEED #0
fat wires in a small airplane. There are
tens of thousands of light aircraft flying
with #2 feeders . . . even with the batteries
in back. Thousands more flying with #4 fat-wires
with batteries in front.
A sad but irrefutable fact is that most starter
manufacturers do not speak to efficiency at their
intended task. About 10 years ago, I e-mailed
4 manufacturers asking if they would provide
samples for testing on a dynamometer for the purpose
of gathering data for a Lightplane Maintenance article.
Only one of the four offered to provide test samples.
Hence, no data, no article, continued ignorance amongst
system integrators and TC/OBAM aircraft customers.
One generally doesn't get away with such behavior
in the TC aircraft world. I've wrestled with reluctant
suppliers . . . but ultimately won the day when they
considered the potential for NOT getting their product
listed on the airplane's type certificate.
Bottom line is that there are good reasons based
on simple ideas in physics that make one starter
behave differently from another starter in the same
installation. 90% of the time, it has nothing to
do with the way the starter is installed/wired.
A particular combination of components can appear
to indicate a 'bad battery' when in fact the starter
is just not very efficient. It's not always a bad
idea to trade off efficiency for weight or price . . .
but there are practical limits.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
At 08:51 AM 9/5/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob & Listers et al -
> I think this may be my first post ever, after lurking for years!
Welcome to the party!
My dilemma concerns the GS/VOR antennas. I'm pretty sure that I am
going to build a dedicated GS antenna and mount it on the canopy
glareshield. The VOR antenna is the issue. I have a splitter that
will handle two VORS & two GS, but I believe I would need the longer
antenna to use it.
Correct.
After all of this digression, I come to the question - if I mount a
VOR antenna in the roof of the baggage compartment, how much loss
will I incur if I bend the elements to follow the side of the fuselage?
Unable to quantify in any terms that would
be meaningful. A wet string will have some
level of performance as an antenna. A laboratory
grade, test range antenna will come very close
to theoretical performance. All practical antennas
fall somewhere between wet strings and the best-we-
know-how-to-do. Just what you can settle for as
"practical" isn't quantifiable.
Suggest you consider the legacy 'cat whisker'
antenna in the fin cap. This isn't ideal but
has been a practical performer for 50 years.
Further, at such time as you decide to eliminate
VOR capability entirely, you'll have very little
work to do on the airplane to make it look like
the antenna was never there.
Another option is the v-swept antenna mounted
on the tailcone under the rudder.
Bob . . .
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: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10
I sent an email off earlier today to Vans, Lycoming, and Sky-Tec requesting
clarification on Sky-Tec's recommendation to use the 149-NL over the
Vans/Lycoming supplied 149-12LS.. The following is the response that I
received from Rich at Sky-Tec. I have his permission to re-post his email.
He doesn't participate in the forums, but welcomes anyone to communicate
directly with him via email or telephone.
bob
-----Original Message-----
From: richc@skytecair.com [mailto:richc@skytecair.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Skytec Starter
Bob,
This is important dialogue. We (Sky-Tec) have been completely unsuccessful
getting vans customers the ability to receive the 149-NL on their rv-10 540
purchases. It would be nice for something to break the log jam.
The 149-LS works well on van's factory 10 (and many other 54 applications
through the years) and that keeps some content with its ongoing use and
recommendation. But in the field, others aren't able to get their electrical
systems capable of delivering the additional current the LS requires to
provide the "Sky-Tec start" we all know, love and expect from our 540
engines.
I am growing a bit "over accustomed" shall we say to providing those no
charge swap outs. But we will continue since we owe so much of our success
to date to the very parties involved: Lycoming, vans, and the experimental
builders.
If anybody wants a good deal on some swapped out 149-12LS starters, let me
know ; ) I can't sell them as new and must rebuild them to satiate FAA
requirements.
In the meantime, keep those swap requests coming and please keep asking vans
and Lycoming to kindly consider an empl change for rv-10 540 engine builds.
Best,
Rich
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 |
|
Just so you know, I've had the Bob Archer VOR antenna in the left
wingtip on our RV-6A for years and found it to work just fine for both
VOR and glideslope. The best part is that it's not out in the wind or
poking people in the eye.
Ed Holyoke
On 9/5/2011 6:51 AM, Sam Staton wrote:
>
> Bob & Listers et al -
> I think this may be my first post ever, after lurking for years! I
> am building an RV6, and I came into the project after it was very well
> along. This has posed some interesting issues with placement of
> components and such. I am in the design process now for the
> electrical/avionics suite, and need some advice. My avionics will
> consist of a Terra TX720D, TR200D, and a TriNav C for navigation. I
> will also have a King KY-97A for the second comm. My dilemma concerns
> the GS/VOR antennas. I'm pretty sure that I am going to build a
> dedicated GS antenna and mount it on the canopy glareshield. The VOR
> antenna is the issue. I have a splitter that will handle two VORS &
> two GS, but I believe I would need the longer antenna to use it. After
> all of this digression, I come to the question - if I mount a VOR
> antenna in the roof of the baggage compartment, how much loss will I
> incur if I bend the elements to follow the side of the fuselage? The
> wingtips are probably not going to be a good option, either - there
> will be an APRS J-pole antenna in one, at least. The illustration in
> the book seems to show the elements with a pronounced bend aft. If
> that will work without significant loss, that may be the answer. Most
> of my navigation will be by GPS anyway, so VOR is not the issue it
> would have been 20 years ago. Thanks in advance for all of the good info!
>
> Sam Staton
> Jacksonville, FL
>
>
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: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 with Z-14
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! --
|