Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:12 AM - Re: Connectors and factories (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 07:17 AM - Re: Re: IVO Prop current limiter (Emil Sr)
3. 09:07 AM - Re: Change of business model . . . (eschlanser)
4. 12:33 PM - Re: Re: IVO Prop current limiter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 02:27 PM - Mac's theory defies the laws a physics (user9253)
6. 02:31 PM - Re: Essential Bus question (Bill Watson)
7. 02:56 PM - Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics (Robert Borger)
8. 03:13 PM - Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics (Bill Watson)
9. 03:15 PM - Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics (Daniel Hooper)
10. 03:39 PM - Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics (Charlie England)
11. 03:44 PM - Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics (Peter Pengilly)
12. 03:44 PM - Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics (rayj)
13. 04:32 PM - Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics (Henador Titzoff)
14. 05:05 PM - Fuselage as ground conductor (Eric M. Jones)
15. 06:33 PM - Re: Essential Bus question (Kelly McMullen)
16. 09:24 PM - Re: Essential Bus question (Jeff Luckey)
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: Connectors and factories |
At 07:39 PM 2/6/2014, you wrote:
Bob,
As someone who runs a small electronics factory I can sympathize with
your decision not to continue doing that. There are a thousand
trivial things you have to do every day that impact your bottom line,
your ability to sleep well, and in the OBAM business, more serious
consequences.
Agreed . . . but it's not that the production tasks were
demeaning or debilitating. It wasn't even a decision
driven so much by economics . . . had my product flow
been say 100x larger and I was running a profitable
factory, it still wouldn't have made much sense.
I've been reviewing the ideas offered by the likes of
Adam Smith who spoke of the value and 'rightness' of
division of labor and spontaneous organization. An
economist Leonard Read spoke to these ideas most
elegantly in his essay "I Pencil" about 60 years
ago:
http://tinyurl.com/me3q3hj
http://tinyurl.com/mmlbv8p
The point I have belatedly acknowledged that in spite
of all the hats I can wear, it makes best sense
to take on those efforts where my time and talents
move the project along most efficiently. I.e. it
makes no sense for the cobbler to raise corn,
feed cattle, butcher them for hides and tan the
leather to make shoes. There are people who
do these ancillary tasks better than he can
and he doesn't even need to supervise them!
So my quest is to seek out a combination of
wearers of hats that compliment each other.
I'm building a CH750 and just this week have been pondering the
problem mentioned with the Ray Allen trim servo wires. There are
other disassembly points too like lights and gauge senders in the
wing, so I would like to choose one type and stick to it. Maybe we
can kick this around for a bit.
While I would like to use a standard connector, preferably mil
standard like the old MIL-DTL-5015 ("MS connector") they are just too
bulky and heavy. I really would rather not use a proprietary
sole-source connector like the Switchcraft EN but if I'm going to
choose something sole source I would want one that's in common use.
I'm considering two connector families. One is weatherproof
automotive connectors like the Delphi Weather Pack. The other is a
lightweight plastic variant of a military round connector, like the
AMP CPC series. Weather Pack is available in 1 to 6 and 22 contacts,
and seems to be a well proven system, but seems a little bulky
Your perceptions are correct but lets consider
the return on investment for the 'ideal solution'.
There are some folks who make very rugged yet
tiny connectors suited to the task. One in
particular is LEMO
[]
who joins up bundles of wires in a rugged,
water tight connector about 1/2" in diameter.
I've seen these in the catalogs for years but
didn't cross swords with one until a couple
years ago when a device I had to talk to
came already fitted with a LEMO connector.
We had to come up with a mate and get it
installed on the end of a 4-wire bundle. By
the time we tracked down sources for and
purchased the mating connector and tools,
we probably had 2,000 dollars of labor
and purchases invested in the task. Too
late in a meeting weeks before first flight
I blurted out, "Lets cut the damned thing
off, go to the warehouse and get $50 worth
of connectors out of stock that install with
tools we already have!"
Everybody smiled and nodded except the program
manager who had already expended the $2K
and wasn't willing to pitch it in favor of
moving the project forward by about a week.
This is a prime example for loss of spontaneous
organization and focus on design goals.
What are your concerns for mating those itty-
bitty actuator wires to the ship's systems?
What are the consequences for say, inadvertent
disconnect on a dark-n-stormy night flight
over Mount Doom?
Is the airplane likely to be stuck in a condition
so far out of trim that it's un-manageable with
elevated risks to aluminum and bone?
How many times over the lifetime of the airplane
do you expect to open this connection for maintenance
or replacement of the actuator? By what
percentage of total task would labor go up if
those wires were simply soldered together and
heat-shrinked?
I think well considered answers to those
questions will form the basis for a practical
selection of a connector for the task.
I used to commiserated with my chief scientist
at Beech about 'thousand dollar meetings' . . .
10 people sitting around a table for an hour
to arrive at some decision . . . and then
walking out of the meeting no closer to a
solution than when we walked in . . . or
perhaps having burdened our work order with
a $1000 decision on a $50 part.
How can we free up some hours for our readers
to go buck a few more rivets as opposed to
getting wrapped around the decision axle on
the particular harness connector?
Adam Smith would approve . . .
Bob . . .
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: | Re: IVO Prop current limiter |
On 2/6/2014 4:12 PM, kfav8r wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> I built Bob's current limiter for my IVO prop. My first attempt at it did not
work. It seemed to have an issue similar to that reported by Mike Welch some
time ago. As soon as I hit the switch in either direction, the motor would
turn very briefly, then the yellow light would come on.
>
> I could not figure out where I'd gone wrong, so I built a new circuit from scratch.
My second attempt seems to work properly, although I'm still building
and my prop is not assembled. With the second circuit, the motor turns normally
in both directions. To test the cut-off, I shorted the leads that would
normally go to the motor. In that configuration, the yellow LED immediately
turns on, and the breaker does not trip.
>
> It will be a little while before I can test it with the propeller assembled.
>
> Bob, this is such a terrific addition to the IVO IFA prop. I greatly appreciate
you designing this and making it available. Thanks also to Dennis for his
involvement in making it happen.
>
> Doug Garland
> Norman, OK
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418213#418213
>
> Hi Bob if you still have any of the limiter kits available I would like to have
one thanks Emil Radtke
>
>
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: Change of business model . . . |
Too bad for me. I had been pondering which size and style of avionics ground bus
to order. Hopefully, another manufacturer will soon provide the AEC parts. If
there is going to be a delay before those parts become available, will you provide
some guidance on a bill of materials and directions on a way to DIY? As
a workaround, would the connections to the avionics bus be able to go straight
to the instrument panel ground bus or would there be a problem with it? 12 V
system, Z-13/8, GNS430W, GTX327, PM3000, GRT HXr efis, EIS 4000, dual magnetos.
Regards, Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418284#418284
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: IVO Prop current limiter |
>>Hi Bob if you still have any of the limiter kits available I would
>>like to have one thanks Emil Radtke
it was never 'kitted' . . . only a schematic offered.
several have been built and a few folks have experienced
difficulties. We'll track down the 'glitches' and
apply any necessary/useful refinements.
I have a board laid out from which this device can
be fabricated and a housing to enclose it. It will
be one of several products to spin up from the
selected manufacturing partner for the AeroElectric
Connection brand . . .
But in the mean time, see
http://tinyurl.com/ny5jhgr
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: | Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no
matter its relative motion.
This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who lurk
on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301
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: Essential Bus question |
Sorry about adding to this rather old discussion but I've been away for
awhile.
I finished my RV10 in 2011 which means that I designed my electrical
system and panel around 2008 for a 2009-2010 build.
I have 3 GRT HX EFISs - 2 aimed at the pilot, 1 at the passenger. They
supply synthetic vision, moving map, weather, traffic and a complete
suite of engine stats. No light weight backup batteries can be
configured at the factory with these systems. These screens have no
integral on/off switch. I chose not to add any switches or operable
CBs. They come on with the master and will usually reboot when my IO540
cold starts with a single, fresh PC 680 battery.
The GPS WAAS smarts for this system are supplied by a G430W.
I am a serious traveler with this machine and practically all flight are
on IFR plans. My normal routine for all flights is to file my plan
using Foreflight on an iPad. Whenever at an airport with clearance
delivery, or when departing into IMC conditions, I obtain my clearance
on the ground, before engine start, and enter it into my iPad and then
into my G430. Many times in congested areas, this entry is followed by
no small amount of study. As my aging mind continues to fog over, I'm
finding that the study time grows.
Here's the challenge on G430 based panels; it loses any entered flight
plan when powered off. An engine start that reboots my GRTs, reboots my
G430.
An acute challenge on 430 based panels when used for flights around the
Wash DC area or for flights along Florida's Atlantic coast is that the
G430 does not know what a Victor airway is. These are flights I make
regularly and clearances in these areas typically still include Victor
airways. So in the routine described above, entry into the iPad
generates the necessary waypoints to any Victor airways. Accurate entry
of these waypoints into the G430 is important and there's no way I want
to redo the work.
As Bob would put it, this is the 'kitchen sink' I choose to fly with. I
think it's fantastic and works very very well for me. It's now a well
grooved swing. The inability of some (e.g. Bob, not necessarily you
Kelly but I did choose to respond to your post) to 'get' this
requirement for this pilot, seems to me is just an inability to see past
old school experience or perhaps your current pleasure flying routines.
I have a Z-14 with 2 batts, 2 alts, and 2 buses and I REALLY like it. I
bring up the 'kitchen sink' on one battery, get my clearances, enter
them into my systems, study my departure plan when doing complicated
airspace or low IMC departures and then bring up the 2nd battery bus,
cross link them and start my engine. Everything stays up. Before
takeoff I've learned, per Bob, to de-link the buses and off I go.
Per Bob, I've eliminated any semblance of an avionics bus, extra
switches or CBs. After a few operational adjustments and refinements
(Thanks Bob!), the 'overkill' of a Z-14 has given me exactly what I
think I need.
I need my avionics on before start and I have a big kitchen sink that
takes care of the dishes just like I want them done. So can we please
stop dismissing this approach to equipping and traveling in our very
fine OBAM aircraft within the user fee free ATC system we have? Some
of us do it every day because that's the way we choose to roll.
PS: I've been out of the loop island hopping the Bahamas. Recommend it
highly. What an adjustment flying VFR from place to place! However, I
still used the same procedures because that's what standard procedures
are for.
Bill "It's pretty darn good in the Bahamas" Watson
N215TG
On 2/2/2014 7:14 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Virtually all glass have their own light weight backup batteries so do
> not have startup brown out issues unless no backup battery is installed.
> I see very little value in being able to turn on GPS prior to start.
> While one needs engine instrumentation prior to and during start, one
> does not need avionics on.
> Of course newer avionics that allow faster input of flight plans than
> the 430 help, if that is the reason for turning on 430 before start.
>
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: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
Gents,
I like Mac most of the time, but here I believe hes all wet.
First, he bases his premise on a false assumption; that ground speed affects air
speed. Wrong. Ground speed has zero effect on airspeed. Its just the opposite.
Airspeed is the operative mechanism and ground speed just follows.
>From then on he wades into the age old down wind turn and I dont even want to
go there.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger@mac.com
On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:26 PM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no
matter its relative motion.
This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who lurk
on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
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: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
Oh No! The dreaded downwind turn! Here we go....
On 2/7/2014 5:26 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
> I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity,
no matter its relative motion.
> This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who
lurk on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
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: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
Not that I know much about aerodynamics, but it sounds like he's talking about
real stuff but using the wrong terminology. For example, you can change your momentum
but not your inertia (unless you're dumping luggage overboard!)
If you substitute 'momentum' for inertia and 'inertial frame' for ground speed,
I think what he says makes a lot more sense.
--Daniel
On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Robert Borger <rlborger@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Gents,
>
>
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: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
On 2/7/2014 4:26 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
> I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity,
no matter its relative motion.
> This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who
lurk on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
I've seen lots of comments about that article that say basically the
same thing you're saying, but I think that (because of his poor
phrasing), his point is being missed. I don't think that he really meant
that the ground is affecting airspeed. I think that he meant that in a
turn, the relative wind is shifting, which affects lift. In a normal
turn at normal speed, we never notice it because the change is so
gradual. But in a turn at very low airspeed (as in, turn to final), the
turn rate can be tighter due to low airspeed & there's more chance of
real airspeed being affected by the change in relative wind. Now, tying
inertia to gravity was just dumb, & makes the whole article vulnerable
to critical analysis.
What's not explicitly said is that if we're maneuvering close to the
ground, we're much more likely to use the ground as a reference for our
speed, which can cause us to land too fast or too slow, depending on
wind direction.
FWIW,
Charlie
(Not a fan of his writing appearing in an EAA mag)
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: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
I think he's tried to simplify something that is actually quite complex,
and got all mixed up in the process.
I find it difficult to completely disagree with him, but its not how I
would have gone about describing what happens.
Peter
On 07/02/2014 22:26, user9253 wrote:
>
> Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
> I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity,
no matter its relative motion.
> This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who
lurk on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301
>
>
> .
>
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: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
Reminds me of an article that was in the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport
Aviation. Doesn't anyone review these articles?
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 02/07/2014 04:26 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
> I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity,
no matter its relative motion.
> This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who
lurk on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301
>
>
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: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
I agree Bob. As several others have pointed out, there are some big misunderstandings
in his article. I am very surprised Sport Aviation "printed" this article.
I'd like to point out that Mac doesn't understand what "wind velocity" is. He
says:
"In the classic wind shear encounter a strong wind changes velocity
or direction, or both, suddenly robbing the airplane of lift."
People who know what they're talking about know that velocity is a vector and includes
magnitude (speed) and direction; therefore, his terminology is incorrect.
When I detect these kind of errors, I have a tendency to think the author
doesn't know what he's talking about. I see this scenario happening at work
meetings frequently.
Henador Titzoff
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2/7/14, Robert Borger <rlborger@mac.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 2:55 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: Robert Borger <rlborger@mac.com>
Gents,
I like Mac most of the time, but here I believe hes all
wet.
First, he bases his premise on a false assumption; that
ground speed affects air speed. Wrong. Ground
speed has zero effect on airspeed. Its just the
opposite. Airspeed is the operative mechanism and
ground speed just follows.
>From then on he wades into the age old down wind turn
and I dont even want to go there.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320
EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger@mac.com
On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:26 PM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com>
wrote:
<fransew@gmail.com>
Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will
lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because
part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be
used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming
inertia. I think that the only force the earth exerts
on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.
This is not electrically related. But there are some
pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.
It will be interesting to read their opinions.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
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: | Fuselage as ground conductor |
Bob N., et al.:
When one builds an airplane with the starter and the battery some distance apart,
using the fuselage as a ground conductor is usually (?) done. What is the resistance
of a typical fuselage used in this way? Can it carry 200A or so for
the starter?
What are your thoughts?
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418319#418319
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: Essential Bus question |
Bill,
I don't know what was available when you designed your system. Grand
Rapids recommends http://www.tcwtech.com/IBBS.htm for backup battery,
and TCW says it is also suitable for backup of G430.
Dynon offers its own backup battery managed by the EFIS software to
takeover at 12.3 volts.
Garmin 650 and 750 know airways, unlike their older brethern.
I get the need for airways and not wanting to re-enter flight plan after
start, or wait to after start to do it with the price of gas.
There is also a voice activated add on for the 430 for data entry that
Knows airways.
What I "get" is the desire to keep electrical system as simple as
possible as the primary means to reduce failure points. If reboot
becomes a problem with my GTN 650, I will add a TCW unit. I'm just not a
fan of dual bus, dual alternator, dual battery systems, but we are OBAM
so we can make our own choices and argue with anyone who chooses
differently. ;-)
Kelly
On 2/7/2014 3:30 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
> <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
>
> Sorry about adding to this rather old discussion but I've been away
> for awhile.
>
> I finished my RV10 in 2011 which means that I designed my electrical
> system and panel around 2008 for a 2009-2010 build.
>
> I have 3 GRT HX EFISs - 2 aimed at the pilot, 1 at the passenger. They
> supply synthetic vision, moving map, weather, traffic and a complete
> suite of engine stats. No light weight backup batteries can be
> configured at the factory with these systems. These screens have no
> integral on/off switch. I chose not to add any switches or operable
> CBs. They come on with the master and will usually reboot when my
> IO540 cold starts with a single, fresh PC 680 battery.
>
> The GPS WAAS smarts for this system are supplied by a G430W.
>
> I am a serious traveler with this machine and practically all flight
> are on IFR plans. My normal routine for all flights is to file my
> plan using Foreflight on an iPad. Whenever at an airport with
> clearance delivery, or when departing into IMC conditions, I obtain my
> clearance on the ground, before engine start, and enter it into my
> iPad and then into my G430. Many times in congested areas, this entry
> is followed by no small amount of study. As my aging mind continues
> to fog over, I'm finding that the study time grows.
>
> Here's the challenge on G430 based panels; it loses any entered flight
> plan when powered off. An engine start that reboots my GRTs, reboots
> my G430.
>
> An acute challenge on 430 based panels when used for flights around
> the Wash DC area or for flights along Florida's Atlantic coast is that
> the G430 does not know what a Victor airway is. These are flights I
> make regularly and clearances in these areas typically still include
> Victor airways. So in the routine described above, entry into the
> iPad generates the necessary waypoints to any Victor airways.
> Accurate entry of these waypoints into the G430 is important and
> there's no way I want to redo the work.
>
> As Bob would put it, this is the 'kitchen sink' I choose to fly with.
> I think it's fantastic and works very very well for me. It's now a
> well grooved swing. The inability of some (e.g. Bob, not necessarily
> you Kelly but I did choose to respond to your post) to 'get' this
> requirement for this pilot, seems to me is just an inability to see
> past old school experience or perhaps your current pleasure flying
> routines.
>
> I have a Z-14 with 2 batts, 2 alts, and 2 buses and I REALLY like it.
> I bring up the 'kitchen sink' on one battery, get my clearances, enter
> them into my systems, study my departure plan when doing complicated
> airspace or low IMC departures and then bring up the 2nd battery bus,
> cross link them and start my engine. Everything stays up. Before
> takeoff I've learned, per Bob, to de-link the buses and off I go.
>
> Per Bob, I've eliminated any semblance of an avionics bus, extra
> switches or CBs. After a few operational adjustments and refinements
> (Thanks Bob!), the 'overkill' of a Z-14 has given me exactly what I
> think I need.
>
> I need my avionics on before start and I have a big kitchen sink that
> takes care of the dishes just like I want them done. So can we please
> stop dismissing this approach to equipping and traveling in our very
> fine OBAM aircraft within the user fee free ATC system we have? Some
> of us do it every day because that's the way we choose to roll.
>
> PS: I've been out of the loop island hopping the Bahamas. Recommend it
> highly. What an adjustment flying VFR from place to place! However,
> I still used the same procedures because that's what standard
> procedures are for.
>
> Bill "It's pretty darn good in the Bahamas" Watson
> N215TG
> On 2/2/2014 7:14 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> Virtually all glass have their own light weight backup batteries so
>> do not have startup brown out issues unless no backup battery is
>> installed.
>> I see very little value in being able to turn on GPS prior to start.
>> While one needs engine instrumentation prior to and during start, one
>> does not need avionics on.
>> Of course newer avionics that allow faster input of flight plans than
>> the 430 help, if that is the reason for turning on 430 before start.
>>
>
>
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: Essential Bus question |
=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Kelly McMullen <kelly
m@aviating.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Friday, Febr
uary 7, 2014 6:32 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Essential Bus questi
@aviating.com>=0A=0ABill,=0AI don't know what was available when you design
ed your system. Grand Rapids recommends http://www.tcwtech.com/IBBS.htm for
backup battery, and TCW says it is also suitable for backup of G430.=0ADyn
on offers its own backup battery managed by the EFIS software to takeover a
t 12.3 volts.=0AGarmin 650 and 750 know airways, unlike their older brether
n.=0AI get the need for airways and not wanting to re-enter flight plan aft
er start, or wait to after start to do it with the price of gas.=0AThere is
also a voice activated add on for the 430 for data entry that Knows airway
s.=0AWhat I "get" is the desire to keep electrical system as simple as poss
ible as the primary means to reduce failure points. If reboot becomes a pro
blem with my GTN 650, I will add a TCW unit. =0A=0AI'm just not a fan of du
al bus, dual alternator, dual battery systems, but we are OBAM so we can ma
ke our own choices and argue with anyone who chooses differently. ;-)=0A=0A
Exactly - That's why I drew the system that I posted about a week ago (see
attached PDF).- Single bus, single alternator, simpler...=0A=0A=0A=0AOn 2
/7/2014 3:30 PM, Bill Watson wrote:=0A> --> AeroElectric-List message poste
d by: Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>=0A> =0A> Sorry about adding to th
is rather old discussion but I've been away for awhile.=0A> =0A> I finished
my RV10 in 2011 which means that I designed my electrical system and panel
around 2008 for a 2009-2010 build.=0A> =0A> I have 3 GRT HX EFISs - 2 aime
d at the pilot, 1 at the passenger. They supply synthetic vision, moving ma
p, weather, traffic and a complete suite of engine stats.- No light weig
ht backup batteries can be configured- at the factory with these systems.
- These screens have no integral on/off switch. I chose not to add any s
witches or operable CBs.- They come on with the master and will usually r
eboot when my IO540 cold starts with a single, fresh PC 680 battery.=0A>
=0A> The GPS WAAS smarts for this system are supplied by a G430W.=0A> =0A>
I am a serious traveler with this machine and practically all flight are on
IFR plans.- My normal routine for all flights is to file my plan using F
oreflight on an iPad.- Whenever at an airport with clearance delivery, or
when departing into IMC conditions, I obtain my clearance on the ground, b
efore engine start, and enter it into my iPad and then into my G430.- Man
y times in congested areas, this entry is followed by no small amount of st
udy.- As my aging mind continues to fog over, I'm finding that the study
time grows.=0A> =0A> Here's the challenge on G430 based panels; it loses an
y entered flight plan when powered off.- An engine start that reboots my
GRTs, reboots my G430.=0A> =0A> An acute challenge on 430 based panels when
used for flights around the Wash DC area or for flights along Florida's At
lantic coast is that the G430 does not know what a Victor airway is. These
are flights I make regularly and clearances in these areas typically still
include Victor airways.- So in the routine described above, entry into th
e iPad generates the necessary waypoints to any Victor airways.- Accurate
entry of these waypoints into the G430 is important and there's no way I w
ant to redo the work.=0A> =0A> As Bob would put it, this is the 'kitchen si
nk' I choose to fly with.- I think it's fantastic and works very very wel
l for me. It's now a well grooved swing.- The inability of some (e.g. Bob
, not necessarily you Kelly but I did choose to respond to your post) to 'g
et' this requirement for this pilot, seems to me is just an inability to se
e past old school experience or perhaps your current pleasure flying routin
es.=0A> =0A> I have a Z-14 with 2 batts, 2 alts, and 2 buses and I REALLY l
ike it.- I bring up the 'kitchen sink' on one battery, get my clearances,
enter them into my systems, study my departure plan when doing complicated
airspace or low IMC departures and then bring up the 2nd battery bus, cros
s link them and start my engine.- Everything stays up.- Before takeoff
I've learned, per Bob, to de-link the buses and off I go.=0A> =0A> Per Bob,
I've eliminated any semblance of an avionics bus, extra switches or CBs.
- After a few operational adjustments and refinements (Thanks Bob!), the
'overkill' of a Z-14 has given me exactly what I think I need.=0A> =0A> I n
eed my avionics on before start and I have a big kitchen sink that takes ca
re of the dishes just like I want them done.- So can we please stop dismi
ssing this approach to equipping and traveling in our very fine OBAM aircra
ft- within the user fee free ATC system we have?- Some of us do it ever
y day because that's the way we choose to roll.=0A> =0A> PS: I've been out
of the loop island hopping the Bahamas. Recommend it highly.- What an adj
ustment flying VFR from place to place!- However, I still used the same p
rocedures because that's what standard procedures are for.=0A> =0A> Bill "I
t's pretty darn good in the Bahamas" Watson=0A> N215TG=0A> On 2/2/2014 7:14
lly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>=0A>> =0A>> Virtually all glass have thei
r own light weight backup batteries so do not have startup brown out issues
unless no backup battery is installed.=0A>> I see very little value in bei
ng able to turn on GPS prior to start.=0A>> While one needs engine instrume
ntation prior to and during start, one does not need avionics on.=0A>> Of c
ourse newer avionics that allow faster input of flight plans than the 430 h
elp, if that is the reason for turning on 430 before start.=0A>> =0A> =0A>
=
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! --
|