Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:03 AM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 05:34 AM - Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:28 AM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Neal George)
4. 07:40 AM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Kelly McMullen)
5. 09:38 AM - Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (H. Marvin Haught)
6. 09:44 AM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (H. Marvin Haught)
7. 09:46 AM - Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (H. Marvin Haught)
8. 09:48 AM - Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (H. Marvin Haught)
9. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (H. Marvin Haught)
10. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (H. Marvin Haught)
11. 12:54 PM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Neal George)
12. 01:09 PM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (H. Marvin Haught Jr.)
13. 01:33 PM - Fw: Pacer drawings (Mark Moyle)
14. 01:55 PM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Kelly McMullen)
15. 03:37 PM - Re: Fw: Pacer drawings (Bill Maxwell)
16. 05:03 PM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Charlie England)
17. 06:05 PM - Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (user9253)
18. 06:11 PM - Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (user9253)
19. 07:07 PM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Kelly McMullen)
20. 07:30 PM - Re: Fw: Pacer drawings (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 07:32 PM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 07:38 PM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 10:14 PM - Re: Re: Fw: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress (H. Marvin Haught Jr)
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
At 09:41 PM 6/14/2015, you wrote:
>The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's
>electrical system should conform to the original as it left the
>factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>
>What am I missing?
Not a thing. I'm not sure that Marvin intended
to post this to the List . . . he has a friend
in AK who is rebuilding a Pacer and I'm pretty
sure this is his first whack at a wiring diagram.
I'm copying pages from another wirebook to assemble
a page-per-system approach that will produce
more readable copy and give us a better foundation
to sift the details.
It's not a bad thing that the List be involved,
I'm pleased to see the degree of interest and
participation. I'll publish the wirebook to the
List as well -
I think "Bearhawk" may be Mr. Mark Moyle's
handle . . .
Thanks for participating guys . . . watch this space . . .
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
At 01:12 PM 6/14/2015, you wrote:
>There should have been 4 or 5 files, each one a section of the whole
>drawing. I will try to send it again.
Got it . . . and it's receiving the learned attention
from members of the List . . .
Has he actually purchased the Plane Power hardware yet?
The regulator in his drawing is a universal replacement
for a host of applications, some of which date back to
years that alternators were fitted with auxiliary sense
terminals for controlling a field relay.
His diagram for the alternator appears to be a clone
of the installation instruction drawings for the R1224
regulator which assumes ALL of the legacy features
are present. If he has purchased this hardware,
we need to know which alternator is in hand.
Bob . . .
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Old Bob -
A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical
schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
Neal
On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>" <B
obsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical syst
em should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approve
d modifications there to.
What am I missing?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other
than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit
the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will
have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not.
If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be
contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually
changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed
aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
> Old Bob -
> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated
> electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>
> Neal
>
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B@aol.com
> <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>" <BobsV35B@aol.com
> <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
>
>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's
>> electrical system should conform to the original as it left the
>> factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>> What am I missing?
>> Happy Skies,
>> Old Bob
> *
>
>
> *
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Yes, the hardware is all at hand. I talked to Mark last night and he is
supposed to be joining this list. This is going to be a good learning
experience for me, except for the usual back and forth as to change from
original wiring or not. THAT decision has already been made, as you and
I discussed, with the goals of installing more a more modern wiring
design using updated components , keeping everything as simple and light
as possible. I have not discussed the procedure favored by my
supervising mechanic yet as to how to get the changes approved, but if
it has been approved before, I have copies of the old approval, and
follows approved wiring practices, with proper wire size, good
workmanship and good components, he said he has no problem with the
paperwork. Once we have a design, I will give it to him for his
approval, and go / no go decision.
I will forward your email on to him, and get him signed up to the list.
M. Haught
> On Jun 15, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 01:12 PM 6/14/2015, you wrote:
>> There should have been 4 or 5 files, each one a section of the whole
drawing. I will try to send it again.
>
> Got it . . . and it's receiving the learned attention
> from members of the List . . .
>
> Has he actually purchased the Plane Power hardware yet?
> The regulator in his drawing is a universal replacement
> for a host of applications, some of which date back to
> years that alternators were fitted with auxiliary sense
> terminals for controlling a field relay.
>
> His diagram for the alternator appears to be a clone
> of the installation instruction drawings for the R1224
> regulator which assumes ALL of the legacy features
> are present. If he has purchased this hardware,
> we need to know which alternator is in hand.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
That post was copied from the Bearhawk list. The airplane is / was an original
Pacer that I sold to Mark a couple of years ago. It was wrecked due to the landing
gear folding up from a weld repair turning loose, likely due to the extreme
cold. Mark is rebuilding it with extensive modifications. There is an extensive
thread of the rebuild, step by step on the Short Wing site. Additionally,
I am starting a PA22-20 project that I picked up covered and painted in
Waverly, IA a few years ago, and will be doing a similar panel. The diagram is
from a Super Cub builder that used that wiring design for the rebuild of his
Super Cub, with the wiring approved by his mechanic and is now flying on the
airplane. So we know it has been approved and installed at least once.
M. Haught
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:59 PM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> What am I missing?
>
> The title that says, "Bearhawk"? There is a Bearhawk Patrol, but I am not familiar
with a Bearhawk Pacer.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443545#443545
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Don=99t know the answers to your questions but I hope Mark will
get signed up on the list today to provide the answers. But I
appreciate the input and I am saving your comments to make sure these
issues are resolved as I hope the design will be used in my project once
this group gets done =9Ctweaking=9D it!
M. Haught
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Bob McCallum
<robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Marvin;
>
> Couple of comments;
>
> Don=99t understand the second battery depicted as a panel common
ground buss?? (Also depicted with negative terminals at both ends??)
>
> On the voltage regulator, the ground, enable, and sense terminals are
all tied together and also to both ground and battery power. This will
either blow fuses, trip breakers or release valuable smoke from the
wires. Also as shown, if the ground is corrected, the alternator field
switch has no control as there is an alternate path in parallel from the
first fuse on the main buss. (labeled main?? Hard to read?) This part of
the circuit will simply not work as shown.
>
> Wire sizes seem a little strange. Some are marginally small others
excessively large. How were these chosen??
>
> The main battery symbol is shown with two positive terminals. The
right hand, grounded terminal should be negative. (short line as opposed
to long) (semantics, I know, but- - )
>
> A single switch removing all avionics power is generally considered a
bad idea as it is a single point of failure. (although used on many
production aircraft for years.) (your choice, it will work, but - - )
>
> The reverse current diode really serves no purpose as the rectifier
diodes in the alternator are in series with it anyway.
>
> Bob McC
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>] On Behalf Of H.
Marvin Haught
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:21 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
<mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
>
> Okay, I have attached the four files. We will see if they come
through.
>
> M. Haught
>
>
>
>
>
>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
This is a certified airplane. Prefer to start with a design and drawing
that we know has been approved and is flying on a 337 in a similar Piper
Product so we have a =9Chistory=9D to cite.
M. Haught
> On Jun 15, 2015, at 12:44 AM, Justin Jones
<jmjones2000@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Marvin,
>
> Why not use one of Bob N's Z-Diagrams in the Aeroeletric connection?
Engineered, Tested and proven to perform.
>
> Justin
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 19:05, Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca
<mailto:robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>
>> Marvin;
>>
>> Couple of comments;
>>
>> Don=99t understand the second battery depicted as a panel
common ground buss?? (Also depicted with negative terminals at both
ends??)
>>
>> On the voltage regulator, the ground, enable, and sense terminals are
all tied together and also to both ground and battery power. This will
either blow fuses, trip breakers or release valuable smoke from the
wires. Also as shown, if the ground is corrected, the alternator field
switch has no control as there is an alternate path in parallel from the
first fuse on the main buss. (labeled main?? Hard to read?) This part of
the circuit will simply not work as shown.
>>
>> Wire sizes seem a little strange. Some are marginally small others
excessively large. How were these chosen??
>>
>> The main battery symbol is shown with two positive terminals. The
right hand, grounded terminal should be negative. (short line as opposed
to long) (semantics, I know, but- - )
>>
>> A single switch removing all avionics power is generally considered a
bad idea as it is a single point of failure. (although used on many
production aircraft for years.) (your choice, it will work, but - - )
>>
>> The reverse current diode really serves no purpose as the rectifier
diodes in the alternator are in series with it anyway.
>>
>> Bob McC
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>] On Behalf Of H.
Marvin Haught
>> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:21 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
<mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
>>
>> Okay, I have attached the four files. We will see if they come
through.
>>
>> M. Haught
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>
>
>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Bob is correct. But it is fine that it is on the list, as I thought
everyone could learn from my ignorance. The post was originally from
the Bearhawk Builders List and forwarded to Bob. Yes, this is Mark and
my own first crack at a wiring diagram, and since I have 3, maybe 4
airplanes to wire in the next several months, I need to learn and
develop a good generic wiring design that can be easily approved on a
certified airplane without a lot of drama and effort. Those of you that
have owned and flown Pacer will appreciate why the wiring needs
improvement. I completely rewired my Pacer when I got it 20 years ago,
but used all the old components and just replaced what was there. The
project I am doing now will be for sale when it is finished, so I want
something that is simple and trouble free, and won=99t be coming
back for me to repair. It also needs to be similar to other GA
airplanes so that any mechanic will now how to repair it (I will have a
complete wiring diagram in the paperwork). I love that Bob is already
on that track with the page per system approach. That is already a
benefit for my understanding and records.
M. Haught
> On Jun 15, 2015, at 7:01 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 09:41 PM 6/14/2015, you wrote:
>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's
electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory
and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> Not a thing. I'm not sure that Marvin intended
> to post this to the List . . . he has a friend
> in AK who is rebuilding a Pacer and I'm pretty
> sure this is his first whack at a wiring diagram.
>
> I'm copying pages from another wirebook to assemble
> a page-per-system approach that will produce
> more readable copy and give us a better foundation
> to sift the details.
>
> It's not a bad thing that the List be involved,
> I'm pleased to see the degree of interest and
> participation. I'll publish the wirebook to the
> List as well -
>
> I think "Bearhawk" may be Mr. Mark Moyle's
> handle . . .
>
> Thanks for participating guys . . . watch this space . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
That is up to my mechanic.I am just trying to make it easier for him, and he told
me to come up with a design that has already been used on a similar airplane
as a starting place, which is what we have done. I do not know if this drawing
has been used as a minor repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different
FSDOs require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other
places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a minor alteration. He says
if I keep the design generic and similar to other certified airplanes, it
has been used and approved before, have detailed drawings, use approved components,
and have the wiring and components sized correctly, it will make his job
easier. And your last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic and
project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the side benefit
of additional eyes and analysis from the group.
M. Haught
> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the
schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix
A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to
make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes
are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field
approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might
not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>
> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>> Old Bob -
>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical
schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>
>> Neal
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B@aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>" <BobsV35B@aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system
should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications
there to.
>>> What am I missing?
>>> Happy Skies,
>>> Old Bob
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Depends on the design of the subject aircraft, the extent of the changes and the
perspective/interpretation/demands of the mechanic and approving IA, I suppose.
Adjusting the average 40-year-old airplane to reflect Z-12 seems relatively simple,
straightforward, and safer to this IA.
Z-13/8 or Z-14 would take a little more paperwork...
Neal George
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the
schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix
A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to
make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes
are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field
approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might
not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>
>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>> Old Bob -
>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical
schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>
>> Neal
>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B@aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>" <BobsV35B@aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system
should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications
there to.
>>> What am I missing?
>>> Happy Skies,
>>> Old Bob
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
And is probably what I will do.....Mark is trying to get signed up but
the server has been down, he says. He has corrected all the stuff
pointed out as problems on his schematic and will be reposting the
drawings.
M. Haught
On 6/15/2015 2:53 PM, Neal George wrote:
>
> Depends on the design of the subject aircraft, the extent of the changes and
the perspective/interpretation/demands of the mechanic and approving IA, I suppose.
>
> Adjusting the average 40-year-old airplane to reflect Z-12 seems relatively simple,
straightforward, and safer to this IA.
>
> Z-13/8 or Z-14 would take a little more paperwork...
>
> Neal George
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the
schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix
A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
>> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have
to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes
are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field
approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner
might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>>
>>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>>> Old Bob -
>>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical
schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>>
>>> Neal
>>>
>>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B@aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>" <BobsV35B@aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system
should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved
modifications there to.
>>>> What am I missing?
>>>> Happy Skies,
>>>> Old Bob
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: | Fw: Pacer drawings |
Bob,
I attempted to join the forum. Sever stopped responding. I've red
through the thread pertaining to the schematic. Didn't realize one of
the construction lines found its way into the raster file when I
converted it to a word document. I've deleted that line. Ground issue
with the charging circuit fixed. Removed the diode from the alternator
feed. Wasn't installing it anyway... Using a 70 amp plane power
alternator and the regulator identified in the thread. As to the
questionable wire gauges call out. They're a combination of the
original Pacer wiring diagram sizes, gauge called for in the schematics
for the new electronics and gauge size on the supercub diagram I was
given. The ground block/buss bar symbol has been changed to a ground
symbol.
Attached are two DXF files exported from Cadkey 97. One is
AutoCAD...worked in AutoCAD 2000 don't know if it will work in later
programs. The second is a DXF.
Thanks
Mark Moyle
Platinum, Alaska
907-979-2010
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That is
what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing system.
Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light airplane
background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs.
It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an STC
approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs won't even
consider a reference to an existing modification.
Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom wiring
setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your diagrams. Much
better if he can rely on original Piper data.
On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote:
>
> That is up to my mechanic.I am just trying to make it easier for him, and he
told me to come up with a design that has already been used on a similar airplane
as a starting place, which is what we have done. I do not know if this drawing
has been used as a minor repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it,
different FSDOs require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in
other places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a minor alteration. He
says if I keep the design generic and similar to other certified airplanes, it
has been used and approved before, have detailed drawings, use approved components,
and have the wiring and components sized correctly, it will make his job
easier. And your last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic
and project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the side benefit
of additional eyes and analysis from the group.
>
> M. Haught
>
>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the
schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix
A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
>> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have
to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes
are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field
approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner
might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>>
>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>>> Old Bob -
>>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical
schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>>
>>> Neal
>>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B@aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>" <BobsV35B@aol.com <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system
should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved
modifications there to.
>>>> What am I missing?
>>>> Happy Skies,
>>>> Old Bob
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Pacer drawings |
You're in Mark
Bill
On 16/06/2015 6:32 AM, Mark Moyle wrote:
>
> Bob,
> I attempted to join the forum. Sever stopped responding. I've red
> through the thread pertaining to the schematic. Didn't realize one of
> the construction lines found its way into the raster file when I
> converted it to a word document. I've deleted that line. Ground issue
> with the charging circuit fixed. Removed the diode from the
> alternator feed. Wasn't installing it anyway... Using a 70 amp plane
> power alternator and the regulator identified in the thread. As to
> the questionable wire gauges call out. They're a combination of the
> original Pacer wiring diagram sizes, gauge called for in the
> schematics for the new electronics and gauge size on the supercub
> diagram I was given. The ground block/buss bar symbol has been
> changed to a ground symbol.
> Attached are two DXF files exported from Cadkey 97. One is
> AutoCAD...worked in AutoCAD 2000 don't know if it will work in later
> programs. The second is a DXF.
> Thanks
> Mark Moyle
> Platinum, Alaska
> 907-979-2010
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: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Don't forget; the plane is in Alaska. Everything I've ever heard about
Alaska indicates that they get to work with a different FAA than the
rest of us. :-)
Some of the legal mods I've heard about would make wiring changes almost
unnoticeable, relatively speaking.
Charlie
On 6/15/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That
> is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing
> system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light
> airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs.
> It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an
> STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs won't
> even consider a reference to an existing modification.
> Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom
> wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your
> diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data.
>
> On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote:
>> <handainc@madisoncounty.net>
>>
>> That is up to my mechanic.I am just trying to make it easier for
>> him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been
>> used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we have
>> done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a minor
>> repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDOs
>> require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other
>> places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a minor
>> alteration. He says if I keep the design generic and similar to
>> other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before, have
>> detailed drawings, use approved components, and have the wiring and
>> components sized correctly, it will make his job easier. And your
>> last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic and
>> project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the side
>> benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group.
>>
>> M. Haught
>>
>>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>>
>>> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other
>>> than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that
>>> fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair.
>>> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving
>>> will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major"
>>> or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO
>>> needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything
>>> is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have
>>> a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>>>
>>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>>>> Old Bob -
>>>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated
>>>> electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>>>
>>>> Neal
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B@aol.com
>>>> <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>" <BobsV35B@aol.com
>>>> <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's
>>>>> electrical system should conform to the original as it left the
>>>>> factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>>>>> What am I missing?
>>>>> Happy Skies,
>>>>> Old Bob
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Why reinvent the wheel? Use Bob Nuckolls' Z-11. It is a simple electrical system.
If the powers to be think that it is too complicated, remove the ebus circuit
and run everything off from the main bus.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11N.pdf
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443593#443593
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
> . . . corrected. . . .his schematic and will be reposting the drawings. M. Haught
It would be a big improvement if the drawing will be posted as a pdf instead of
an almost unreadable Word document.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443594#443594
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Well, having lived and flown in Alaska for over 20 years, yes,
enforcement is less, field approvals a little easier, but it is the same
FAA, just further from HQ.
On 6/15/2015 5:04 PM, Charlie England wrote:
> <ceengland7@gmail.com>
>
> Don't forget; the plane is in Alaska. Everything I've ever heard about
> Alaska indicates that they get to work with a different FAA than the
> rest of us. :-)
>
> Some of the legal mods I've heard about would make wiring changes
> almost unnoticeable, relatively speaking.
>
> Charlie
>
> On 6/15/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That
>> is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing
>> system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light
>> airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs.
>> It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an
>> STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs
>> won't even consider a reference to an existing modification.
>> Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom
>> wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your
>> diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data.
>>
>> On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote:
>>> <handainc@madisoncounty.net>
>>>
>>> That is up to my mechanic.I am just trying to make it easier for
>>> him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been
>>> used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we
>>> have done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a minor
>>> repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDOs
>>> require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other
>>> places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a minor
>>> alteration. He says if I keep the design generic and similar to
>>> other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before,
>>> have detailed drawings, use approved components, and have the
>>> wiring and components sized correctly, it will make his job easier.
>>> And your last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic
>>> and project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the
>>> side benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group.
>>>
>>> M. Haught
>>>
>>>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>>>
>>>> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes
>>>> other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the
>>>> aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major
>>>> alteration or repair.
>>>> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving
>>>> will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major"
>>>> or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO
>>>> needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything
>>>> is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have
>>>> a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve.
>>>>
>>>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote:
>>>>> Old Bob -
>>>>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated
>>>>> electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records."
>>>>>
>>>>> Neal
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B@aol.com
>>>>> <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>" <BobsV35B@aol.com
>>>>> <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's
>>>>>> electrical system should conform to the original as it left the
>>>>>> factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to.
>>>>>> What am I missing?
>>>>>> Happy Skies,
>>>>>> Old Bob
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Pacer drawings |
At 03:32 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>I attempted to join the forum. Sever stopped responding. I've red
>through the thread pertaining to the schematic. Didn't realize one
>of the construction lines found its way into the raster file when I
>converted it to a word document. I've deleted that line. Ground
>issue with the charging circuit fixed. Removed the diode from the
>alternator feed. Wasn't installing it anyway... Using a 70 amp
>plane power alternator and the regulator identified in the
>thread. As to the questionable wire gauges call out. They're a
>combination of the original Pacer wiring diagram sizes, gauge called
>for in the schematics for the new electronics and gauge size on the
>supercub diagram I was given. The ground block/buss bar symbol has
>been changed to a ground symbol.
>Attached are two DXF files exported from Cadkey 97. One is
>AutoCAD...worked in AutoCAD 2000 don't know if it will work in later
>programs. The second is a DXF.
>
>Thanks
>Mark Moyle
>Platinum, Alaska
>907-979-2010
>
Hi Mark!
Welcome to the AeroElectric List. Yeah, the server was
sick for a time this weekend.
I've taken the liberty of converting data I was able
to glean from the .doc files into a page-per-system
wirebook. A working copy has been posted to
http://tinyurl.com/o39rp8u
When we're all through sifting the pebbles and
cobwebs out of it, I can send you the original
file in 2011 .dwg or .dxf
Can you tell us more about your project? The Pacer
is my Canadian 'dream machine' . . . I've often
thought that if I lived in Canada, I'd de-cert
a nice airframe and engine, strip the electrical,
install cargo pad in back seat, put nice bucket
seats in the front and end up with a pretty agile,
low-cost, mo-gas powered CC machine for the wife
and I . . .
So much for fantasies . . . how can the List
help?
Can you give us a narrative on the hardware you've
already purchased . . . alternator, regulator, battery,
radios, instruments, etc. I presume this is going
to be an Alaskan workhorse. Did you get your copy
of the 'Connection?
You might take advantage of the breaker-list
and see what is already known about what items
will need DC power and how much energy those
gizmos use. This page becomes the index for
following page-per-system drawings.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
At 03:53 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote:
>
>Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That
>is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing
>system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light
>airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs.
>It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an
>STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs
>won't even consider a reference to an existing modification.
>Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom
>wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your
>diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data.
or a professionally crafted and presented
wirebook . . .
Bob . . .
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
At 08:03 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote:
>
>Why reinvent the wheel? Use Bob Nuckolls' Z-11. It is a simple
>electrical system
Z-11 is a snapshot of an architecture . . . not
a wirebook. I've launched a wirebook project for
Mark's airplane. With the List's eyes and gray-matter
sifting the details, we'll end up with a wirebook
worthy of attachment to any one-time STC or 337
effort.
Bob . . .
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress |
Which is what I am after for my Pacer project and any future projects! Cong
rats, Mark.....you re on the list. This is gonna be fun!
Marv
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
>
> At 08:03 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote:
>>
>> Why reinvent the wheel? Use Bob Nuckolls' Z-11. It is a simple electric
al system
>
> Z-11 is a snapshot of an architecture . . . not
> a wirebook. I've launched a wirebook project for
> Mark's airplane. With the List's eyes and gray-matter
> sifting the details, we'll end up with a wirebook
> worthy of attachment to any one-time STC or 337
> effort.
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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! --
|