AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Fri 02/07/14


Total Messages Posted: 16



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
    Time: 06:12:32 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 07:17:04 AM PST US
    From: Emil Sr <papa11@centurylink.net>
    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
    Time: 09:07:28 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Change of business model . . .
    From: "eschlanser" <eschlanser@yahoo.com>
    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
    Time: 12:33:47 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 02:27:57 PM PST US
    Subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics
    From: "user9253" <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 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
    Time: 02:31:00 PM PST US
    From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
    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
    Time: 02:56:16 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics
    From: 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: 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
    Time: 03:13:13 PM PST US
    From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
    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
    Time: 03:15:49 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics
    From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 03:39:19 PM PST US
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 03:44:41 PM PST US
    From: Peter Pengilly <peter@sportingaero.com>
    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
    Time: 03:44:53 PM PST US
    From: rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net>
    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
    Time: 04:32:16 PM PST US
    From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff@yahoo.com>
    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
    Time: 05:05:37 PM PST US
    Subject: Fuselage as ground conductor
    From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
    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
    Time: 06:33:25 PM PST US
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    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
    Time: 09:24:37 PM PST US
    From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey@pacbell.net>
    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

  • 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! --