Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:14 AM - Re: Jabiru 2200 voltage regulator again (Sacha)
2. 12:25 AM - Unshielded wire for mags? (Sacha)
3. 06:40 AM - hypothetical question (user9253)
4. 07:04 AM - Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:23 AM - Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna (p32gxy)
6. 07:49 AM - Re: Jabiru 2200 voltage regulator again (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
7. 08:03 AM - Re: Jabiru 2200 voltage regulator again (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:07 AM - Re: Unshielded wire for mags? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:20 AM - Re: Jabiru 2200 voltage regulator again (Charles Deiterich)
10. 08:22 AM - Re: hypothetical question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 08:41 AM - Re: Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 08:50 AM - EXP 2 Bus workaround (Fred Klein)
13. 08:56 AM - Landing gear warning trigger (donjohnston)
14. 09:48 AM - Re: Odyssey Batteries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 09:57 AM - Re: Landing gear warning trigger (rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us)
16. 10:10 AM - Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 10:20 AM - Re: Landing gear warning trigger (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 11:46 AM - Good guys in blue hats coming over the hill . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 12:52 PM - Re: Landing gear warning trigger (donjohnston)
20. 01:11 PM - Re: Re: Landing gear warning trigger (James Kilford)
21. 01:20 PM - Re: Re: Landing gear warning trigger (rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us)
22. 03:58 PM - Re: Landing gear warning trigger (donjohnston)
23. 04:35 PM - Re: Re: Landing gear warning trigger (Jared Yates)
24. 04:38 PM - Re: Re: Landing gear warning trigger ()
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: Jabiru 2200 voltage regulator again |
> This would perform no better than the stock Rotax-
> Ducati regulator except for design goals stated.
Bob,
Assume you mean "no worse" in the sentence above ;)
Would you recommend switching out a Ducati regulator that's already installed (Kitfox,
Rotax 912, VFR Only)?
Sacha
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Unshielded wire for mags? |
What are the potential unwanted consequence of using unshielded wire for wiring
mags switches?
I just realized that's how my Kitfox is wired up but I can't hear any particular
interference in the headsets so far.
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: | hypothetical question |
I recently had a conversation with a pal who's had a solid background in marine
electrical/electronic work...a long time successful business after getting started
in the USN. We discussed wiring a hypothetical fiberglass airplane with
a rear mounted battery. I suggested running battery cables in integrated fiberglass
conduit with positive cables to starboard and negative to port side.
He claims that would be a big "no-no" as it would set up a powerful magnetic field
which would cause mayhem w/ radios. Unfortunately he did not have time to
elaborate on the mayhem.
I disagreed with his statement. I think there could be some noise on the radio
while cranking the engine, but that is of short duration. Is there a real
disadvantage to running positive wires on one side of the fuselage and negative
wires on the other side?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411074#411074
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: EXP 2 Bus workaround |
At 11:57 PM 10/21/2013, you wrote:
On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
I can find no reason to run two batteries in your project. The
disparity of endurance demands between the e-bus and engine-bus
leaves watt-seconds left over on the e-bus . . . which means
your panel is still lit after the engine quits.
Bob...
I'm really surprised to here you say that...I've really bought into
your rationale for having 2 batteries of equal size so they can be
rotated out one at a time, raising the probability that one is
always (relatively) new...as for my endurance bus, I'd love to add my
COM to it. I think your rationale as I read it in the Connection is
especially appropriate for an engine which can't rely upon mags.
I understand. It would help to review the history
of the two-battery concept:
The simplest, most reliable batteries are those which
receive periodic critical attention, like pre-flight
checks for fuel, oil, tire tread, controls, etc. The
battery is this smooth plastic box hidden away out
of sight and offers no observable data on it's
state of charge or ability to even take a charge.
Obviously, we cannot pre-flight a battery with the
same level of confidence as pulling out the dipstick
to check oil.
But we do know that batteries tend to fail gracefully,
sorta like the degradation of compression with the
service time on an engine or tread wear with numbers
of landings on tires. It is sufficient to check
your compression every annual (~50 hrs for average
light aircraft) or get out the tread wear gauge when
the tires are "looking a bit skinny".
Delving into the inner secrets of a battery is a
process with more complexity and requiring more tools
than peeking into a fuel tank or wiggling the stick
to make sure controls are intact and free.
The first driver for considering dual batteries was
to eliminate or at least shift the cost of ownership
for periodic polygraph testing of the battery. The
idea was simply cycle a new battery into a pair
of batteries every annual. The rationale for that
philosophy was based on the owner/operator's willingness
and dedication to the task of tracking the battery's
condition.
If you take the total cost of owning your airplane
and divide by hours flown, you come up with some
number. Rotating a new battery into the top of a pair
each annual will add (cost-of-battery/hours-flown)
to that other number. For many, the $time$ spent
on doing a battery change-out was more attractive
than taxation of $time$ to do the periodic battery
polygraph.
A second benefit of the dual battery architecture
was that it clearly divided endurance calculations,
planing and management into to camps. (1) engine
and (2) everything else that influenced battery-only
flying time. When I introduced the
e-bus concept 20+ years ago, it was no big deal to
craft a Plan-B wherein electrical system endurance
exceeded fuel endurance.
The people-paid-to-worry about airplanes tell us
that for the most part, 30 minutes of battery-only
endurance is enough. Perhaps so for the wizened ATP
pilot with 10,000 hours and a host of successfully
managed tense days in the cockpit. But for John Q
fliver-flyer with 600 hours, no intensive training
in airborne systems management and only flies
50-100 hours a year . . . it's another matter
entirely.
Hence my personal design goals for seeking ways
to assemble, maintain and operate systems with
considerably more than 30 minutes of battery-only
performance . . . preferably some number than
exceeds duration of fuel aboard.
So, in 4-5 hours of pondering your system here
on the List and on the road, I've divided your
battery only requirements into two piles. (1)
no-options loads like keeping the fires behind
the prop lit and (2) lighting up things on
the panel that are most useful for continued
cruising flight until a CONVENIENT, or better
yet, airport of intended destination is in
sight.
As a renter of certified airplanes, my personal plan-B
planning, maintenance and operation is necessarily
limited to stuff I carry in my flight bag. In other
words, from J3 to A36 Bonanza, I have no control
over the airplane so I plan to get where I want
to go wether the panel is lit up or not.
Now, you've got an engine that we THINK takes
about 10A to run. Getting one hour of endurance
requires a single battery having about 20 a.h.
capacity (when new) at the 20 hour rate. We know
that failure to benefit from ALL of a battery's
potential energy is a function of the battery's internal
resistance. So the proportion of energy tossed
off internally at any given discharge rate is
less if the battery is up-sized.
Another consideration for your airplane is
the value of partitioning system power into
two tasks (1) truly essential - keeping the
engine running and (2) optional - things on
the panel.
Okay, how does the Plan-B picture change if
your airplane is fitting with one, larger battery.
Several ways: First there is more incentive to
KNOW the state of your battery's health. This
means $time$ required for the periodic electrograph
as a preventative maintenance policy on the
airplane. But if you ran nothing but the
engine during no-alternator-ops, then the larger
single battery maximizes your endurance numbers
into something far more comfortable than that
30-minute thingy the paid-to-worry crowd is
so comfortable with . . . but then, NONE of
those folks are going to fly YOUR airplane.
Next, with one battery, you have the option
of turning OFF things that influence your
endurance capabilities . . . especially if
those capabilities are backed up by Plan-B1
hardware in the flight bag. So if your desired
destination is only an hour away, leave all
that stuff on. But you have the option of getting
2 hours plus endurance too.
Finally, this line of reasoning offers a much
simpler array of switches for which in-flight
decisions must be made. It offers a relatively
clean way to integrate the EXP-Bus into to
final design.
So armed with knowledge of battery condition,
time to fly to an airport of convenience then
you can simply choose what things on the panel
will be lit up or shut down. Maybe you can
go max-dark and fly hand-held until time
for descent and approach whereupon you turn
things back on. In this mode of flight, the
only thing other than engine specific loads
would be a voltmeter.
Based on this recent line of reasoning, I'm
wondering if elegance level Z-19 is really
as cool as I thought when the drawing was
crafted some years ago. It is perhaps and
example of the "too soon we get old, too late
we get smart" syndrome. But if that question
in going to get answered, I doubt that it
will happen more expeditiously than here
on the List . . . and you (along with your
airplane) may be the impetus for the effort.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna |
Just an update... I am currently pursuing a loop antenna made out of Coax which
allows me to reduce it's size somewhat. I am looking at placing this antenna
inside the fuselage tailcone (all composite) and avoid the complications associated
with placing the VOR antenna in the wing.
I've ordered an VHF/UHF Vector Antenna Analyzer to tune this guy in place. I am
hoping that this "experiment" will go well.
Thanks everyone for your suggestions/comments.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411083#411083
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: Jabiru 2200 voltage regulator again |
Just some additional options - I am running an 18A John Deere PM
alternator in my plane and am using an aftermarket voltage regulator
designed for Harley. Nearly all motorcycles use PM alternators, and
these days cycles have all the fancy electronics like a plane or car.
Plus the regulators are designed to survive in a very hostile
environment. There are a number of good brands out there, including
Accel, Crane, Compu-Fire, Cycle Electric and others. (Of course, there
are also low-quality Chinese knock-offs, so buyer beware!)
My Crane Cams "Fireball" regulator is mounted behind the firewall,
directly on the metal side skin, so it can use some of that that as
additional cooling surface. The regulator runs through the B&C PM/OV
Filter & Protection kit (504-1). I have about 5 years and 550 hours on
the plane, mostly in the Arizona desert, with no problems at all in the
electrical system, FWIW.
Andy
------------------------
Andy Elliott, CL:480-695-9568
N601GE/Z601XL/TD/Corvair
525 hrs since 11/08
<http://servi-aero.com/n601ge/4sale/> Web Site Link
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 2200 voltage regulator again |
At 02:13 AM 10/22/2013, you wrote:
> This would perform no better than the stock Rotax-
> Ducati regulator except for design goals stated.
Bob,
Assume you mean "no worse" in the sentence above ;)
Either. The modification will leave regulator
performance unchanged. But utility is improved
with adjustability and reliability is probably
improved by more robust management of BTUs and
abnormal bus voltages.
Would you recommend switching out a Ducati regulator that's already
installed (Kitfox, Rotax 912, VFR Only)?
I don't think so. It's sorta like that discussion
we've had on el-cheapo contactors. The over all
service life, cost of ownership and risk should drive
the decision.
At Beech, there were issues that rose to the top-ten
list of field service issues. Those got red-team
attention. Then there were things that generated
ADs against the airplane. Those were tiger-team
tasks. Stuff that didn't make the top ten were
subject to economic triage and generally handled
by competent and courteous field service reps.
Many airplanes are flying this rectifier/regulator
. . . the failure rate has bubbled up to at least
nuisance levels for some individuals but perhaps
not enough for red-team response by Rotax, Jariru,
et. als. For some flyers of engines with PM
alternators, it may be sufficient incentive for a
re-invention this particular wheel. It's one of
those self-interested, free-market exchange of
value decisions. I don't see it as much of a risk
issue.
Bob . . .
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: Unshielded wire for mags? |
At 02:25 AM 10/22/2013, you wrote:
>
>What are the potential unwanted consequence of using unshielded wire
>for wiring mags switches?
>I just realized that's how my Kitfox is wired up but I can't hear
>any particular interference in the headsets so far.
All of the legacy prophylactics for noise abatement
are based on stand-alone evaluation of one system's
ability to generate noise verses the ability of other
systems to provide satisfactory operation in the
presence of noises that can never be zero.
I believe that ignition wires on a Rotax are
not nearly so prone to radiate noise as those
on a legacy magneto. If you're not experiencing
a problem, then your requirements to limit noise
have not exceeded the limits established by potential
victims of noise. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 2200 voltage regulator again |
Bob,- =0A=0A=0ASorry for my ignorance, but how do I see your attachment?
=0A=0AChuck D.=0A=0A=0A=0ATime: 12:28:49 PM PST US=0AFrom: "Robert L. Nucko
lls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
Jabiru 2200 voltage regulator again=0A=0AAt 08:54 AM 10/21/2013, you wrote
:=0A>=0A>=0A>I know a number of us would like to improve the Rotax regs...
=0A>Please continue!- Thanks.=0A=0A- Okay. The attached schematic is
for a voltage regulator=0A- (I'd leave that semi-worthless alt failure w
arn out).=0A
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: hypothetical question |
Subject: AeroElectric-List: hypothetical question
From: "user9253" <fransew@gmail.com>
I recently had a conversation with a pal who's had a solid background
in marine electrical/electronic work...a long time successful
business after getting started in the USN. We discussed wiring a
hypothetical fiberglass airplane with a rear mounted battery. I
suggested running battery cables in integrated fiberglass conduit
with positive cables to starboard and negative to port side. He
claims that would be a big "no-no" as it would set up a powerful
magnetic field which would cause mayhem w/ radios. Unfortunately he
did not have time to elaborate on the mayhem.
I disagreed with his statement. I think there could be some noise on
the radio while cranking the engine, but that is of short
duration. Is there a real disadvantage to running positive wires on
one side of the fuselage and negative wires on the other side?
Joe
He's right. Noise is a dynamic thing. I.e.
AC or at least modulated DC currents which
generate in turn, modulated magnetic fields.
An up-the-right, down=the-left configuration
of fat wires forms the primary of
a transformer. All potential victims
situated in the 'core' of that primary WIll
be influenced. Whether it's enough to be
noticed is a guess. But we DO know that
devices that measure static magnetics like
your whisky compass and/or magnetometers
are the most vulnerable.
The management of noise-bearing conductors
is simple-idea science irrespective of the
conductor's role as potential antagonist
or victim. Designing for cancellation of
influence or vulnerabilities using the
benefits of twisted pairs or at least
parallel conductors is inarguable.
That's why the earliest single-wire telephone
systems working against earth ground would
pick up static from local thunderstorms and
became unusable if the poles were shared by
AC power transmission lines.
When the phone company adopted end-to-end,
parallel/twisted pair topology, your phone wires
could traverse the worst of noise environments
with little or no effect. This is why audio
systems with parallel-concentric signal
paths would probably operate well within
such a loop. But the compass instrumentation
is another matter.
Bob . . .
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna |
At 09:22 AM 10/22/2013, you wrote:
Just an update... I am currently pursuing a loop antenna made out of
Coax which allows me to reduce it's size somewhat. I am looking at
placing this antenna inside the fuselage tailcone (all composite) and
avoid the complications associated with placing the VOR antenna in the wing.
I've ordered an VHF/UHF Vector Antenna Analyzer to tune this guy in
place. I am hoping that this "experiment" will go well.
Thanks everyone for your suggestions/comments.
Look up loop antennas in the forums, websites
and journals for amateur radio enthusiasts.
Loop antennas can be adequate if not stellar
performers. But as Robert Heinlein once penned,
"their ain't no such thing as a free lunch".
Generally, any physical shortening of an antenna
requires some "tuning" reactances in the form of
inductors as loading coils or capacitors at
the ends as tuning devices. These added devices
alter the distribution of currents along your antenna's
conductors is ways that are almost never beneficial.
I recall that halo antennas for 2m were rather
narrow banded . . . on a ham band that was 4/146
or +/- 1.5% wide. Your VOR 'halo' range of interest
has a bandwidth of 113/10 or +/- 4.5% a bit
worse.
Fortunately, antennas for aviation are exceedingly
forgiving . . . especially receiving antennas that
watch 100W transmitters from line of sight distances.
So getting your antenna centered on the range of
interest for frequencies is task one. After that,
making quantitative measurements of performance
is at least tedious if not tricky. The analyzer
will measure impedances that can be plotted over
the range of interest but will be of no value
for predicting performance.
Probably the best thing a shade-tree pilot
cum antenna designer can do is install the
experiment. Go fly it. Then report performance
based on experience with other antennas in
rather broad terms of "works fine" or perhaps
not.
The time and effort that takes you from as
assessment of "adequate" to a quantified
plotting of one antenna against another is
a really big jump.
Please share your experiments and findings
with us. Pictures are good too.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EXP 2 Bus workaround |
Bob,
I appreciate your circumspection in taking another look at your twin battery rationale
as you stated it in the Connection. And I wrestle with what I see as inherent
contradictions in our quest for both fail-safe redundancy and simplicity...i.e.,
the more redundancy, the more complexity...fail-safe redundancy - good...increased
complexity - not so much.
A client of mine who certifies electrical and electronic systems for the big boys...I
can't state his company's role or authority in the proper terminology...absolutely
bemoans the aircraft industry's approach to solving problems in complex
systems by adding another layer of complexity.
Fred
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Landing gear warning trigger |
I need a trigger device for my gear up warning. The landing gear controller typically
uses a micro-switch that detects when the throttle is closed. The routing
of my fuel pressure and manifold pressure lines is going to make the mount
for such a switch very difficult.
My A&P mentioned that some aircraft use an adjustable pressure sensor tied in to
the manifold pressure line to accomplish this.
I'm wondering if anyone knows of a pressure sensor like this.
I'm also open to any other options that I can connect to the landing gear controller.
Thanks,
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411104#411104
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Batteries |
At 07:21 PM 10/21/2013, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
I took one of your seminars a few years ago at Ohio State University
Airport and now I have my Wittman Tailwind flying in phase one testing.
The problem I am having with an Oddessey battery PC925 is that it will not
start my Lycoming O-320 when it got to the mid 40s in temperature
overnight. I had the battery on a trickle charger overnight (Battery Tender
brand) and it showed it had charged enough (green led on control unit).
This is the second Oddessey battery I have had in the Tailwind, I had the
previous one replaced under warranty in May.
I need some guidance at troubleshooting this situation, when the battery
was first installed, it cranked the engine well. It has gotten
progressively slower at cranking despite being put on the trickle charger.
Recently after it would not start early in the morning, I put it on the
trickle charger and tried to start it again after lunch. It did start then,
just barely, and then I ran the engine for about 15 minutes to warm up the
oil. The engine has a 60 amp alternator (Nippon Denso) and the buss voltage
on my GRT EIS was 14.2-14.4 volts as the engine was running. After the 15
minute run, I shut off the engine and tried to restart after a couple of
minutes and the engine would not crank more than about 3 blades.
I realize that it is unlikely that I got bad battery to replace a bad
battery but I am not sure which component(s) to look at first. The battery,
starter, wiring and alternator are all things that may be causing the
problem but what to check first?
Thanks for your help, this got a little longer than I intended.
I agree that the likelihood of two bad batteries in
a row is very low. It's likely that some COMBINATION
of effects (voltage drops) are adding up to sabotage
cranking performance.
It's very difficult to do quantitative analysis of
a cranking circuit using a starter as a load. Engine
compression strokes and other variables in mechanical
loads on starter make it impossible to use a digital
meter to make any measurements . . . and still difficult
with an analog instrument.
Consider acquiring one of these tools from Harbor Freight.
Emacs!
http://tinyurl.com/3gnnwrt
Cut the gator-clips off leaving about 6"
of pigtails on each clip. Then install
ring terminals on the remaining leads to
the tester. Each terminal will get TWO
wires, one FAT one for load, one small
one for measuring voltage.
Then bolt the black lead to your
crankcase, the red lead to the UPSTREAM
side of the starter contactor. Build a
set of test leads for your multimeter
long enough to read battery in tail while
you are cranking knobs at the engine end
of the airplane.
Clip the voltmeter onto battery (-) and
battery (+) in the tail. Turn off as
many panel mounted electro-whizzies as
possible . . . pull breakers/fuses if
power switches are not part of the
system.
Turn battery switch ON. This should
produce a voltage on the test set that
is close to the battery voltage being read
in the tail.
Now, crank the handle up such that the
ammeter shows some handy big number.
200A is good. Get a quick reading of
battery volts and load-tester volts.
The battery volts number should be
commensurate with the battery's general
health. I would guess some value over
10 volts. The DIFFERENCE between battery
and tester volts is the value being LOST
in all the cranking system current path.
It should be no more than 1.0 volts.
If greater, then leave voltmeter(+) attached
to battery and move voltmeter (-) to the
tester (+) terminal on the starter contactor.
Repeat the 200A load event and measure the
drop.
Then move the voltmeter (-) back to the battery
(-) and voltmeter(+) to the crankcase. Repeat
the load event and measure the drop. This one
should be MUCH lower than the hot-side drop
measured above.
These three measurements will first identify
magnitude of drops fenced off into ground-side
and hot-side circuits. This is the data which
will guide your further investigation into
sources of cranking path resistance. These may
be combinations of contactors, terminals, wires
and bolted joints.
If the first measurement shows 1 volt or less
of loss, the only remaining variables to investigate
are starter contactor and/or starter performance.
You could move starter(+) lead from the
starter and bolt it to tester(+). Energize
the starter contactor and apply 200A load. See
what voltage is available to the starter at
this load.
As a general rule, there are no single sources
of debilitating voltage drop. A single
joint or contact set would burn up or at least
get really hot at 200A load. My guess is that
you're chasing a combination of drops, none
great enough to get noticeably warm . . . but
the sum total has crippled your otherwise
capable battery/starter combination.
When you're done with the testing, put some
terminals on the pigtails for the gator-clips,
bolt back onto the tester leads and cover
with heat shrink. This will return your tester
to useful battery testing service.
Bob . . .
Message 15
| 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: Landing gear warning trigger |
Hi Don
You can have a look at my throttle position sensor:
http://www.europaowners.org/main.php?g2_itemId=29497
Also have a look at the spring holding down the gear latch and the sensor
for that.
Ron Parigoris
"donjohnston"
> <don@velocity-xl.com>
>
> I need a trigger device for my gear up warning. The landing gear
> controller typically uses a micro-switch that detects when the
throttle is
> closed. The routing of my fuel pressure and manifold pressure lines
is
> going to make the mount for such a switch very difficult.
>
> My A&P mentioned that some aircraft use an adjustable pressure
sensor tied
> in to the manifold pressure line to accomplish this.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone knows of a pressure sensor like this.
>
> I'm also open to any other options that I can connect to the
landing gear
> controller.
>
> Thanks,
> Don
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411104#411104
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| 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: EXP 2 Bus workaround |
At 10:49 AM 10/22/2013, you wrote:
Bob,
I appreciate your circumspection in taking another look at your twin
battery rationale as you stated it in the Connection. And I wrestle
with what I see as inherent contradictions in our quest for both
fail-safe redundancy and simplicity...i.e., the more redundancy, the
more complexity...fail-safe redundancy - good...increased complexity
- not so much.
I think the seeds of the dual-battery tree
were planted by Lightspeed's early-on recommendations
for a second, diode maintained battery to insure
one source of power to a second ignition system.
A client of mine who certifies electrical and electronic systems for
the big boys...I can't state his company's role or authority in the
proper terminology...absolutely bemoans the aircraft industry's
approach to solving problems in complex systems by adding another
layer of complexity.
Sounds like a man who understands FMEA, MTBF
and the value of simplicity in the practical world
of human frailties.
Unfortunately, a lot of public ignorance of
risks exploited by Hollywood and driven by
individuals-paid-to-worry . . .
Emacs!
Your friend sounds like a good resource to review
ideas in this . . . what do I call it . . .
critical review of what may have been an under-developed
idea. Not necessarily a BAD idea but not the elegant
solution.
I'll try to get a drawing crafted to clarify my
thoughts in a form suitable for fielding review by
thoughtful observers.
Bob . . .
Message 17
| 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: Landing gear warning trigger |
At 10:55 AM 10/22/2013, you wrote:
>
>I need a trigger device for my gear up warning. The landing gear
>controller typically uses a micro-switch that detects when the
>throttle is closed. The routing of my fuel pressure and manifold
>pressure lines is going to make the mount for such a switch very difficult.
>
>My A&P mentioned that some aircraft use an adjustable pressure
>sensor tied in to the manifold pressure line to accomplish this.
>
>I'm wondering if anyone knows of a pressure sensor like this.
>
>I'm also open to any other options that I can connect to the landing
>gear controller.
>
>Thanks,
>Don
>
this seems a likely solution
http://tinyurl.com/oehkzu9
http://tinyurl.com/ofemkra
Bob . . .
Message 18
| 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: | Good guys in blue hats coming over the hill . . . |
It will be interesting to watch the evolution and market
experience with this battery. One wonders that given Boeing and
Cessna's experiences . . . what makes these guys think they
can stay up on the bull . . .
Of course, that's probably what they said about Henry Ford . . .
http://tinyurl.com/lsk7vbe
Bob . . .
Message 19
| 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: Landing gear warning trigger |
rparigoris wrote:
> Hi Don
> You can have a look at my throttle position sensor:
> http://www.europaowners.org/main.php?g2_itemId=29497
> Also have a look at the spring holding down the gear latch and the sensor for
that.
> Ron Parigoris
Sorry... I should have been more clear. :(
I'm using a push/pull cable with a knob. The only way (I can see) to detect the
throttle position is with a switch at the engine end of the throttle cable.
But thanks anyway.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411129#411129
Message 20
| 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: Landing gear warning trigger |
Don, do you have a photo? That might prompt some solutions.
James
On 22 October 2013 20:51, donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
> don@velocity-xl.com>
>
>
> rparigoris wrote:
> > Hi Don
> > You can have a look at my throttle position sensor:
> > http://www.europaowners.org/main.php?g2_itemId=29497
> > Also have a look at the spring holding down the gear latch and the
> sensor for that.
> > Ron Parigoris
>
>
> Sorry... I should have been more clear. :(
>
> I'm using a push/pull cable with a knob. The only way (I can see) to
> detect the throttle position is with a switch at the engine end of the
> throttle cable.
>
> But thanks anyway.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411129#411129
>
>
Message 21
| 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: Landing gear warning trigger |
Hi Don
I should have been more clear, I was hinting you could install a magnet
somewhere and have it trigger a reed switch. Don't know if feasible.
Home Depot sells rare earth magnets that are plenty strong with holes in
the center.
Ron P.
Message 22
| 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: Landing gear warning trigger |
> Don, do you have a photo? That might prompt some solutions.
>
> James
Not sure that a photo would help here. There's nothing to take a picture of.
rparigoris wrote:
> Hi Don
> I should have been more clear, I was hinting you could install a magnet somewhere
and have it trigger a reed switch. Don't know if feasible. Home Depot sells
rare earth magnets that are plenty strong with holes in the center.
> Ron P.
I have a standard push/pull cable. It's completely encased. The only place to attach
anything would be at the end of the cable where it attaches to the air/throttle
inlet control. Which, in my situation, there's no way to put a bracket
to mount a switch or sensor to.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411149#411149
Message 23
| 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: Landing gear warning trigger |
Instead of throttle linkage position, could you use a manifold pressure transducer?
On Oct 22, 2013, at 18:57, "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Don, do you have a photo? That might prompt some solutions.
>>
>> James
>
>
> Not sure that a photo would help here. There's nothing to take a picture of.
>
>
>
> rparigoris wrote:
>> Hi Don
>> I should have been more clear, I was hinting you could install a magnet somewhere
and have it trigger a reed switch. Don't know if feasible. Home Depot
sells rare earth magnets that are plenty strong with holes in the center.
>> Ron P.
>
>
> I have a standard push/pull cable. It's completely encased. The only place to
attach anything would be at the end of the cable where it attaches to the air/throttle
inlet control. Which, in my situation, there's no way to put a bracket
to mount a switch or sensor to.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411149#411149
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| 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: Landing gear warning trigger |
Huh? The cable itself has to have a bracket to hold the external shell
while the core moves freely. Why not attach the switch to that bracket and
feed a slave rod to it from the arm of the "whatever" you are running.
Still not enough information given.
Again, a picture of your carb/servo/throttle body and cable attachment would
help shed some light on the problem.
-James
-----Original Message-----
From: donjohnston
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:57 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Landing gear warning trigger
I have a standard push/pull cable. It's completely encased. The only place
to attach anything would be at the end of the cable where it attaches to the
air/throttle inlet control. Which, in my situation, there's no way to put a
bracket to mount a switch or sensor to.
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! --
|