---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 08/16/14: 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:02 AM - Re: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (Stuart Hutchison) 2. 03:36 AM - Re: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (David & Elaine Lamphere) 3. 04:12 AM - Re: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (John Tipton) 4. 06:48 AM - Re: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (Stuart Hutchison) 5. 07:51 AM - Re: Z-19 Symbol Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 09:05 AM - Re: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (Carlos Trigo) 7. 10:00 AM - Re: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (B Tomm) 8. 11:31 AM - Re: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (Ken Ryan) 9. 01:12 PM - Z-19 Function (Justin Jones) 10. 06:26 PM - RG / AGM Batteries (Justin Jones) 11. 06:49 PM - Re: RG / AGM Batteries (Tim Rhodenbaugh) 12. 09:04 PM - Re: RG / AGM Batteries (Charlie England) 13. 10:18 PM - Re: Z-19 Function (Jeff Luckey) 14. 11:05 PM - Re: Z-19 Function (Jeff Luckey) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:02:13 AM PST US From: Stuart Hutchison Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009. The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time. The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to install an analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600 over seven years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled to death or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first 24hrs is often the only 24hrs to find survivors. It's especially unfortunate when people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before they were found. Cheers, Stu F1 Rocket VH-FLY www.mykitlog.com/rockfly -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Andres Sent: 16 August 2014 09:24 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 --> Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call from a customer. He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was triggered. They were able to tell him where it was parked on the ramp, GPS not connected yet. Tim > On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" wrote: > > --> > > 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots > should still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches > and ground crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want to be "saved", and > not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected. If > "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat, > your choice affects them too. > > Bevan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D L > Josephson > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 > > --> > > First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so > existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon. > FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban > manufacture and use of > 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do > that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter > designs but existing models can still be made, sold and installed. > > There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the > original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that > was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can > continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a > new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO > C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and > install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO > C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites for a > near instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most > have the ability for the user to test them easily. > > If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is > probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz > unit is cheap enough, I think. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:36:07 AM PST US From: David & Elaine Lamphere Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea. They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then you turn it on. If not, it doesn't matter. Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route? Dave On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote: > > > > Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb > 2009. > The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, > facilitating more > accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you > have GPS > fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital > signal and > your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near- > real-time. > The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry > database, so > the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be > resolved and/or > the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to > install an > analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 > hours for > the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600 > over seven > years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to > be > confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled > to death > or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first > 24hrs is > often the only 24hrs to find survivors. It's especially unfortunate > when > people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before > they > were found. > > Cheers, Stu > > F1 Rocket VH-FLY www.mykitlog.com/rockfly > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim > Andres > Sent: 16 August 2014 09:24 > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 > > --> > > Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call > from a > customer. He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was > triggered. They were able to tell him where it was parked on the > ramp, GPS > not connected yet. > Tim > >> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" wrote: >> >> --> >> >> 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots >> should still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches >> and ground crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want >> to be > "saved", and >> not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS >> connected. > If >> "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger >> seat, >> your choice affects them too. >> >> Bevan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> D L >> Josephson >> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 >> >> --> >> >> First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so >> existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon. >> FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban >> manufacture and use of >> 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do >> that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter >> designs but existing models can still be made, sold and installed. >> >> There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the >> original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch >> that >> was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can >> continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a >> new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO >> C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and >> install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO >> C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites >> for a >> near instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most >> have the ability for the user to test them easily. >> >> If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is >> probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz >> unit is cheap enough, I think. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:12:14 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 From: John Tipton Yes: we have the McMurdo 'fast find' http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/fastfind-220a.php?clickkey=1218506 http://www.transair.co.uk/sp+McMurdo-Fast-find-220-PLB-with-GPS+3181?utm_campaign=Googlebase&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Googlebase&gclid=Cj0KEQjwgryfBRDn7cvY-pOit4cBEiQAB3nTbokOhCSCFQLHeqmrA3c9yfvcDIW_yZHQlxi7yiZATNoaAm-N8P8HAQ John (G-BBKZ) Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 16 Aug 2014, at 11:34 am, David & Elaine Lamphere wrote: > > > I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea. > They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then you turn it on. > If not, it doesn't matter. > > Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route? > > Dave > > >> On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote: >> >> >> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009. >> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more >> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS >> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and >> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time. >> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so >> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or >> the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to install an >> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for >> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600 over seven >> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be >> confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled to death >> or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first 24hrs is >> often the only 24hrs to find survivors. It's especially unfortunate when >> people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before they >> were found. >> >> Cheers, Stu >> >> F1 Rocket VH-FLY www.mykitlog.com/rockfly >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim >> Andres >> Sent: 16 August 2014 09:24 >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 >> >> --> >> >> Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call from a >> customer. He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was >> triggered. They were able to tell him where it was parked on the ramp, GPS >> not connected yet. >> Tim >> >>> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" wrote: >>> >>> --> >>> >>> 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots >>> should still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches >>> and ground crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want to be >> "saved", and >>> not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected. >> If >>> "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat, >>> your choice affects them too. >>> >>> Bevan >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D L >>> Josephson >>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM >>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 >>> >>> --> >>> >>> First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so >>> existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon. >>> FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban >>> manufacture and use of >>> 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do >>> that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter >>> designs but existing models can still be made, sold and installed. >>> >>> There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the >>> original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that >>> was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can >>> continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a >>> new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO >>> C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and >>> install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO >>> C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites for a >>> near instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most >>> have the ability for the user to test them easily. >>> >>> If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is >>> probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz >>> unit is cheap enough, I think. > > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:48:14 AM PST US From: Stuart Hutchison Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 Principally, I suspect, because the SAR effort often puts numerous searchers' lives and platforms at significant risk in adverse weather and/or high terrain, and is astronomically expensive to conduct (which your taxes pay for). As you say, you may already be dead, but the searchers don't know that until you are found, which may otherwise take days or even weeks. Do you want to put your family through that grief? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack where finding the haystack is a welcome start. I have a Kannad 406 hardwired and an MT406G handheld. If I ditch, I would certainly want a 406mHz PLB attached to me. Having spent 18hrs overnight in a liferaft 5nm to sea, I can say with confidence that you would too! If a PLB is all you have, then be sure to write it into your emergency procedures to activate the PLB before you reach the ground/water. Kind regards, Stu Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Aug 2014, at 20:34, David & Elaine Lamphere wrote: > > > I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea. > They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then you turn it on. > If not, it doesn't matter. > > Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route? > > Dave > > >> On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote: >> >> >> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009. >> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more >> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS >> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and >> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time. >> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so >> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or >> the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to install an >> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for >> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600 over seven >> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:51:59 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 Symbol Question At 06:42 PM 8/15/2014, you wrote: > > >What is the small square that is in the line between the "main >battery contactor" and the "engine battery contactor" on the Z-19 Diagram? See notes on face of drawing . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:05:52 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 From: Carlos Trigo Dave Don't forget that you can survive the crash but not in condition to turn anything on! In that case you will need the Feds to find your ELT. Carlos Enviado do meu iPhone No dia 16/08/2014, s 11:34, David & Elaine Lamphere escreveu: > > I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea. > They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then you turn it on. > If not, it doesn't matter. > > Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route? > > Dave > > > On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote: > >> >> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009. >> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more >> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS >> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and >> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time. >> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so >> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or >> the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to install an >> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for >> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600 over seven >> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be >> confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled to death >> or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first 24hrs is >> often the only 24hrs to find survivors. It's especially unfortunate when >> people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before they >> were found. >> >> Cheers, Stu >> >> F1 Rocket VH-FLY www.mykitlog.com/rockfly >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim >> Andres >> Sent: 16 August 2014 09:24 >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 >> >> --> >> >> Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call from a >> customer. He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was >> triggered. They were able to tell him where it was parked on the ramp, GPS >> not connected yet. >> Tim >> >>> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" wrote: >>> >>> --> >>> >>> 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots >>> should still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches >>> and ground crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want to be >> "saved", and >>> not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected. >> If >>> "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat, >>> your choice affects them too. >>> >>> Bevan >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D L >>> Josephson >>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM >>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 >>> >>> --> >>> >>> First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so >>> existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon. >>> FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban >>> manufacture and use of >>> 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do >>> that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter >>> designs but existing models can still be made, sold and installed. >>> >>> There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the >>> original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that >>> was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can >>> continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a >>> new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO >>> C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and >>> install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO >>> C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites for a >>> near instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most >>> have the ability for the user to test them easily. >>> >>> If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is >>> probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz >>> unit is cheap enough, I think. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:00:10 AM PST US From: "B Tomm" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David & Elaine Lamphere Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:35 AM Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route? Dave Because searches cost a lot of money. So much so that I would suggest that the feds should buy 406s for all of us. It may save them some money. :) Bevan ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 11:31:15 AM PST US From: Ken Ryan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 Also, people are killed conducting searches. If you want to be found, and it you want to minimize risk to search and rescue personnel, get a 406. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:58 AM, B Tomm wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David & > Elaine Lamphere > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:35 AM > > > Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route? > > Dave > > > Because searches cost a lot of money. So much so that I would suggest that > the feds should buy 406s for all of us. It may save them some money. :) > > Bevan > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 01:12:37 PM PST US From: Justin Jones Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 Function I am using Z-19 to wire my electrically dependent IO-360. I am using Robert Paisley's EFII system. This system has 2 ECUs and 2 IGN coils. The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time. It also has 2 fuel pumps. Does the Z-19 system use the Low Voltage Monitor Module to switch on the Engine Battery Bus in the case of a low voltage condition? If I am reading this correctly, I will need to modify the system to have continuous 12V power. What is the best way to do this? I think that I will also need to use another 4-diode bridge rectifier for use with the Coils and extra ECU. Thanks in advance for the help and tips with the system. Justin ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:26:36 PM PST US From: Justin Jones Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG / AGM Batteries Has anyone considered using or used any of the AGM automotive batteries? They seem to be a bit larger, but are they the safe to use in aircraft? Duracell, Everstart, Rayovac, and other brands are inexpensive and readily available. Thoughts on these RG batteries? ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:49:42 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG / AGM Batteries From: Tim Rhodenbaugh I have used odyssey batteries in my velocity up to 25,000 ft for many years Sent from my iPad On Aug 16, 2014, at 9:25 PM, Justin Jones wrote: > > Has anyone considered using or used any of the AGM automotive batteries? They seem to be a bit larger, but are they the safe to use in aircraft? Duracell, Everstart, Rayovac, and other brands are inexpensive and readily available. Thoughts on these RG batteries? > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:04:34 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG / AGM Batteries On 8/16/2014 8:25 PM, Justin Jones wrote: > > Has anyone considered using or used any of the AGM automotive batteries? They seem to be a bit larger, but are they the safe to use in aircraft? Duracell, Everstart, Rayovac, and other brands are inexpensive and readily available. Thoughts on these RG batteries? > > I'd bet that the percentage of homebuilts built in the last decade use RG batteries is approaching 100. This: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=odyssey+pc680 is the 'gold standard', but a lot of us use much less expensive ones like: http://www.apexbattery.com/golden-top-battery-cb2012sla-battery-sealed-lead-acid-batteries-golden-top-battery.html The ones like the Apex I linked, that are made for UPS's & electric wheel chairs, don't work quite as well as starting batteries as the Odyssey, but by going to the 20AH, it has worked great for me for several years. There are many other choices; just google RG or AGM battery. Hope that helps, Charlie ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:51 PM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 Function Justin,=0A=0AYou may want to consider this design for automatic "fail-over" / redundant power for an electrically-dependent engine.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A =0AOn Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:22 PM, Justin Jones =0A=0AI am using Z-19 to wire my electric ally dependent IO-360.- I am using Robert Paisley's EFII system.- This system has 2 ECUs and 2 IGN coils. The system requires that both ECUs and b oth IGN coils are powered all the time.- It also has 2 fuel pumps.- Doe s the Z-19 system use the Low Voltage Monitor Module to switch on the Engin e Battery Bus in the case of a low voltage condition?- If I am reading th is correctly, I will need to modify the system to have continuous 12V power .- What is the best way to do this?- I think that I will also need to u se another 4-diode bridge rectifier for use with the Coils and extra ECU. =0A=0A=0AThanks in advance for the help and tips with the system.=0A=0AJust ==================== ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:05:33 PM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 Function I was unable to view the attachment on the prior posting - perhaps the PDF got corrupted in the upload.- =0A=0A=0ASo, I am re-posting this message w / a new attachment.=0A=0AHope it works this time,=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Saturday, August 16, 2014 10:34 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote :=0A =0A=0A=0AJustin,=0A=0AYou may want to consider this design for automat ic "fail-over"/ redundant power for an electrically-dependent engine.=0A=0A -Jeff=0A=0A=0AOn Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:22 PM, Justin Jones wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Justin Jones =0A=0AI am using Z-19 to wire my electrically dependent IO-360.- I am=0A using Robert Paisley's EFII sy stem.- This system has 2 ECUs and 2 IGN coils. The system requires that b oth ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time.- It also has 2 fuel pumps.- Does the Z-19 system use the Low Voltage Monitor Module to switc h on the Engine Battery Bus in the case of a low voltage condition?- If I am reading this correctly, I will need to modify the system to have contin uous 12V power.- What is the best way to do this?- I think that I will also need to use another 4-diode bridge rectifier for use with the Coils an d extra ECU.=0A=0A=0AThanks in advance for the help and tips with the syste m.=0A=0AJustin=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigato=- - - - - - - - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS=- - - - - - - - - - & n--> http://ww==================== == ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse 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.