AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Mon 06/24/13


Total Messages Posted: 5



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 12:39 AM - ELT antenna location (Chuck Birdsall)
     2. 06:28 AM - Re: #2 Welding Cable (Ben)
     3. 07:38 AM - Re: ELT antenna location (Bill Putney)
     4. 09:15 AM - Z14N incorrect switch designation? (Jay Hyde)
     5. 02:09 PM - Re: Z14N incorrect switch designation? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:39:29 AM PST US
    From: Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall6@cox.net>
    Subject: ELT antenna location
    I'm putting a 406MHz ELT (ACK E-04) in my Piper Cherokee in place of dead OE Narco. One of the statements in the installation manual - and in other references such as AC43.13-2 and antenna manufacturers - says that the ELT antenna should be at least 36 inches from a Com antenna. Key word: Should. The original mount for the factory-installed Narco ELT antenna is 18 inches away from the Com 2 antenna. A quick cruise around the airport found that most of the Pipers with dual coms have a similar setup. I don't want to move the Com 2 antenna because that will start a vortex I'd rather avoid for the time being. Venerable but still functioning avionics package supported by an antenna farm limits my options. I realize there are coupling factors with antennas placed within a half-wavelength of each other. I called the manufacturer and asked - and was told they strongly recommend maintaining 3 feet distance, but they also shoved lots of RF at the antenna/ELT combo during testing and saw no ill effects. So the questions are: Am I going to have to move the Com 2 antenna? What are the risk factors if I leave the antenna locations as they are? Thanks, Chuck


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:28:29 AM PST US
    From: "Ben" <n801bh@NetZero.com>
    Subject: Re: #2 Welding Cable
    Personally I agree with Bob...... If you have a fire burning to the exte nt of worrying about fumes coming off the insulation jacket, you have yo ur priorities wrong....... Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ---------- Original Message ---------- From: robert wiebe <ramjetwiebe@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: #2 Welding Cable Please, can I say something? My first comment may be, "What doesn't produce noxious fumes when it bur ns?" Well, a goodly amount of welding cable, it seems. It just doesn't burn. Some does. One insulation for welding wire is treated neoprene rubber. I remember some time ago (when I was a chemical rep) there was a big disc ussion on the use of ETU (Ethylene Thiouria sp?) as it was used in the v ulcanization process. (There may be other methods in use now.) And neopr ene rubber burns. EPDM does not. BTW, both come in red and I can't tell you why so few use this colour on their + battery runs. What is not supposed to burn is EPDM. Ethylene propylene diene monomer is, I think, the most common store bought welding cable insulation. The price for a brand name is roughly the same as for neoprene. However, I ( that would be me but you have your own choices to make) would not use EP DM in this application as it has significantly lower resistance to greas e and oil than neoprene. Apart from that, EPDM and neoprene are pretty m uch equal in strength, abrasion resistance and so on so FFW I would have no temptation to use EPDM - except that EPDM is not supposed to be flam mable. Much of the surplus welding cable I have encountered seems to be neoprene, but I wouldn't count on it. (They both come in different colou rs and finishes.) So, with EPDM, no poisonous fumes. It doesn't burn. Pu t that in your pipe and try and smoke it! The neoprene cable I am most familiar with is the Carol Brand made stuff (now General Cable.) General Cable makes even more rugged wire, but I h ave never seen it in use - only on sample boards. In the spec sheets, GC calls US made Carolprene flame resistant. The big welding stores sell t his stuff by the light year. I do know that Carolprene finds its way inside mines, factories, etc. wh ere there are going to be major concerns in the case of fire. I have bee n around this or similar products most of my life and have never seen it burn. Granted, I have never intentionally taken a torch to the stuff bu t I can tell you it exists in seriously harsh environments. (It pulls ba ck if you solder it with a torch so I learned to make good crimps. That' s one expensive(!) crimper [so borrow] but I was always able to find goo d terminals surplus. DKW.) Next time I see a wire rep, I'll ask if he can give me the burn temperat ure for the insulation. A brief hunt http://msds.dupont.com/msds/pdfs/EN /PEN_09004a35803d9eb8.pdf reveals that plain ol' neoprene "burns" (flash point, open cup) at above F500 (C260) degrees. For reference, wood burns at about C300 degrees. The fumes from neoprene ARE toxic and noxious. T hey can cause permanent lung damage. Even though EPDM is NOT flammable it's maximum listed service temp is C1 50 degrees. So if you want, run as much as you like inside your aircraft and dare your buddies to burn it. Under the hood, EPDM does find it's w ay into ignition wires, but to my mind this is an item you replace every annual. If you build nose heavy and put your battery(s) in the tail, th en this might be just the place to run EPDM! More importantly, I think, than insulation is wire strand size. I have s een a LOT of very heavy strand stuff called welding cable even though it would never be tolerated. Acceptable stranding should be no larger than 0.010. All the good stuff is. In addition to Bob's comments about fusing: I guess you could always put in a fusible link if you REALLY felt the need. This just seems like an additional and unnecessary failure point (more connections) to me. I wou ldn't do it. ( Aside: As a teen, I had a '74 Mazda Rotary with a failed fuse link that took me days to find. They also ran all the current throu gh the ammeter; something I learned not to do thanks to that experience. ) In the one aircraft I have built and the two projects I am working on, I installed a cable or rod operated mechanical battery switch and no sole noid. (A switch needs no current to stay on.) Either way, I don't know i f I would remember to turn off an ignition switch or flip a battery swit ch (and turn off the fuel and turn off the fuel pump and so on) if I was in a hurry to get out of the way. Maybe that requires practice on my pa rt. I remember reading a tale of a WW2 pilot who bailed out and felt che ated at just that moment as in all his training they never even gave him a minutes instruction - let alone practice - on how to deplane ("Not no w, Tatoo. I'm busy admiring the Corinthian Leather seats in my Volare."* ) when he wasn't on the ground. All this conversation about safety... How many of us wear a parachute? *"De plane, Boss! De plane!" If this makes no sense to you, I feel very old. Neoprene does not appear to be a trademark, hence I avoided capitalizat ion as it is a generic term. -Robert From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 6:55:03 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: #2 Welding Cable Bob, Do to W&B considerations I am moving my 2 Panasonic 1220 batteries 8' af t. I had originally used #4 as the runs were all short, 18" or less(all forward of the firewall). The batteries were initially mounted on the fo rward firewall. As the cable runs are now 9' I intend to use #2 welding cable. Yesterday another builder stopped by to "review many progress" and said welding c able might not be a good choice aft of the firewall as welding cable giv es of poisonous fumes if it burns. Comments? When ANY insulation burns, the products of combustion are exceedingly unfriendly to children and other living things. There are folks who make it their life's work to 'reduce risk' . . . even to the point of codifying their profundities and threatening you with retribution for regulatory transgression. In THIS case: What conditions would cause the insulation on these cables to burn? Electrical overload is one . . . externally applied fire is the other. The risks for electrically induced overload are so tiny that certified iron of all sizes does not add overload protection to these wires. In FAR23.1357 we find these words: Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices. (a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be installed in all electrical circuits other than-- (1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and (2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission. If you've got active fire in the aircraft that threatens to ignite your wire's insulation, then I suggest your risk issues go far beyond any concerns for the quality of the smoke. Bottom line is that while those-who-know-more- about-airplanes-than-we-do will prohibit certain insulations in new design, they still permit an older airplane to be repaired with the SAME insulations that were on the original type certificate. For example, a 1946 C-140 wired with cotton over rubber wire or a 1968 C-172 wired with nylon over PVC can be repaired with the same wire. If the admonitions for controlling cockpit pollution were imperatives, then one would think that any airplane brought in for repairs should be completely re-wired. The short answer is that risks to your future well being due to poor selection of insulation are vanishingly small compared to risks for bird strike, wind shear . . . or running out of fuel. Bob . . . lank" href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectri c-List">http://t; http://www.matronics.com/contrib======== ====== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ============ ____________________________________________________________ NetZero now offers 4G mobile broadband. Sign up now. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT1


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:38:51 AM PST US
    From: Bill Putney <billp@wwpc.com>
    Subject: Re: ELT antenna location
    You're going to have to replace the factory ELT antenna anyway. The 406 ELTs come with antennas that work on both 121.5 and 406. The old antenna will only be effective on 121.5. Are you saying that you have to move the Com 2 antenna because there's no place on the upper fuselage that's 3' away? Or are you saying you don't want to move the ELT antenna position? In any case, the biggest problem of having the 2 antennas in such close proximity is going to be that they will influence each others radiation patterns and you'll find nulls in the coverage in certain directions. I'm a little surprised that the antennas got positioned that close to begin with but it's hard to find enough good places on small airplanes. Bill On 6/24/13 12:38 AM, Chuck Birdsall wrote: > <cbirdsall6@cox.net> > > I'm putting a 406MHz ELT (ACK E-04) in my Piper Cherokee in place of > dead OE Narco. > > One of the statements in the installation manual - and in other > references such as AC43.13-2 and antenna manufacturers - says that the > ELT antenna should be at least 36 inches from a Com antenna. Key > word: Should. > > The original mount for the factory-installed Narco ELT antenna is 18 > inches away from the Com 2 antenna. A quick cruise around the airport > found that most of the Pipers with dual coms have a similar setup. I > don't want to move the Com 2 antenna because that will start a vortex > I'd rather avoid for the time being. Venerable but still functioning > avionics package supported by an antenna farm limits my options. > > I realize there are coupling factors with antennas placed within a > half-wavelength of each other. I called the manufacturer and asked - > and was told they strongly recommend maintaining 3 feet distance, but > they also shoved lots of RF at the antenna/ELT combo during testing > and saw no ill effects. > > So the questions are: > Am I going to have to move the Com 2 antenna? > What are the risk factors if I leave the antenna locations as they are? > > > Thanks, > > Chuck > >


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:15:30 AM PST US
    From: "Jay Hyde" <jay@horriblehyde.com>
    Subject: Z14N incorrect switch designation?
    Hello Bob, I am modifying the Z14 architecture for Rotax type generators/ dynamo's; it seems to me that the STARTER/ CROSS FEED switch should be a 2-5 (ON)-OFF-ON, rather than a 2-7 (ON)-OFF-(ON)? Jay


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:09:11 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Z14N incorrect switch designation?
    At 11:08 AM 6/24/2013, you wrote: >Hello Bob, > >I am modifying the Z14 architecture for Rotax type generators/ >dynamo's; it seems to me that the STARTER/ CROSS FEED switch should >be a 2-5 (ON)-OFF-ON, rather than a 2-7 (ON)-OFF-(ON)? > >Jay > > You are correct. The schematic symbol is correct but the p/n callout wrong. I'll fix. Thanks! Bob . . .




    Other Matronics Email List Services

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

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --